Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CROSSRAIL BILL

Ordered,
That the Committee on the Crossrail Bill have leave to visit and inspect the site of the proposed works and areas affected by the proposed works, provided that no evidence shall be taken in the course of such visit and that any party who has made an appearance before the Committee be permitted to attend by his Counsel, Agent or other representative.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Pan Am Flight 103

Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received concerning the extradition of those persons alleged to have committed the murders of the passengers and crew of Pan Am flight 103 and residents of Lockerbie in December 1988; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): I have received no recent representations concerning the extradition of the two accused, who are Libyan nationals; neither has my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. It is now well over two years since warrants were issued for the arrest of the two accused. We have given comprehensive assurances about the fairness of a trial in Scotland and the pre-trial conditions for the accused. The Libyan Government should comply with the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions and hand the two accused over for trial without further delay.

Dr. Godman: Many people believe that the men who committed those murders over and in Lockerbie will never be brought to trial anywhere. Is it true that the Lord Advocate and the Government now have evidence concerning Syrian and Iranian involvement in this terrible affair? If so, surely sanctions against Libya have reached the end of the road. Why is the Lord Advocate so hostile to the concept of the creation of an ad hoc international tribunal presided over by a senior Scots judge, to judge the persons accused of this terrible crime?

Mr. Lang: The accused can be assured of an absolutely fair trial in Scotland. There is no indication that any alternative arrangement would be any more acceptable to the Libyan Government than what is currently proposed. As for evidence involving other countries or other accused,

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has not seen any evidence that would cause him not to proceed with the criminal charges that have already been brought.

Homelessness, Glasgow

Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he plans to meet Glasgow city housing department to discuss the resources available to tackle homelessness.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I visit Glasgow and the west central belt regularly on housing matters. Glasgow district council has received a total gross housing capital allocation of over £121 million in 1994–95. That is a significant increase on last year, and will enable it to continue to tackle homelessness as a priority issue, as I have requested.

Mr. Watson: Apart from the last phrase, the Minister's answer made no mention of homelessness. That is part of the problem. Last year, 15,000 people presented themselves to Glasgow city council's housing department as homeless; more than 2,000 of them were 16 to 17-year-olds, who do not even have the right to claim any benefits.
Glasgow city council has made it clear in a number of submissions to the Minister that it believes it needs much more in terms of borrowing facilities to enable it to deal with the problem properly. Given that a number of those homeless people have such status largely as a result of the Government's policies—directly or indirectly—when will the Minister face up to his responsibilities on behalf of the homeless not only of Glasgow but of Scotland as a whole?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: All local authorities, including Glasgow, have been asked to give very high priority to dealing with homelessness. That is one of the strategic issues with which it is asked to deal, along with stock that is below the tolerable standard, dampness and care in the community.
This year, Glasgow's resources will total more than £120 million in both housing revenue and non-housing revenue accounts. Scottish Homes is also being asked to give top priority to homelessness, and will be active throughout the housing associations in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Top priority must continue to be given to this pressing subject.

Mr. Gallie: My hon. Friend referred to the importance of the housing associations in the battle against homelessness. Will he confirm that some £1 billion has been spent through the housing associations recently, creating some 50,000 units through building and renovation? Will he also confirm that the greatest proportion has indeed been spent in Glasgow?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend has made a good point. About £500,000 has been spent on housing associations in Glasgow—which, at one stage, was nearly half the total expenditure on housing associations. They are now relevant to Scotland as a whole, and we are tackling deprivation everywhere. I believe that the washing involved helped to make Glasgow a great deal


cleaner, and many more units were provided for homeless people. The Hamish Allan centre is also performing an invaluable role in Glasgow.

Mrs. Fyfe: Does the Minister realise that the Scottish Homes target of 2,500 homes directly and indirectly provided for Scotland as a whole still leaves tens of thousands of families without a home to call their own? Does he realise that, 13 years ago, district councils built 7,000 houses in one year but that in 1992 they were so strapped for cash thanks to the Government that they could only build 1,650? When will the Minister tackle his responsibilities instead of toying with them?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The strategic responsibility will remain that of local authorities, and rightly so. Since 1979, more than 257,000 houses have been built in Scotland. Scottish Homes is right to provide units for the homeless and it is of course concentrating on furnished accommodation, which will be of considerable assistance. I believe that Glasgow is taking its statutory responsibilities seriously and is giving considerable assistance to those who need it.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: rose—

Hon. Members: Cheerio.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Has an hon. Member resigned?
My hon. Friend the Minister will remember that, during the last Scottish Question Time, I asked how many houses owned by local authorities were not occupied. Does not the number of unoccupied houses far exceed the number of people who want to be housed?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I cannot give my hon. and learned Friend the exact figure, but I understand that in the region of 26,000 to 28,000 local authority houses are vacant. Some authorities have a higher percentage of vacant houses than others and we are strongly urging them to bring those properties back into use. My hon. and learned Friend makes an extremely relevant point. We also have a determined drive to bring back into use empty houses in the private sector and, through Scottish Homes, we are providing funding for that purpose. Scottish Homes has lead tenancy arrangements to enable housing associations to let property to homeless families, and empty private property is being used for that purpose.

Fish Farming

Sir Russell Johnston: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had about the situation in the fish farming industry.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): My right hon. Friend and I have received many representations from Scottish salmon farmers about the market and have had a number of constructive meetings with industry representatives to discuss it.

Sir Russell Johnston: But, after all that, is the Minister satisfied that the Norwegians do not use concealed subsidies, severely distorting the market price? Why is he

obdurately opposed to producer-funded producer organisations, which most people in the industry believe are the only sensible way to keep a reasonable balance between supply and demand?

Sir Hector Monro: I believe that the subject of the hon. Gentleman's first point is a matter for the European Commission. We have encouraged the industry to present the evidence to the Commission, which is considering whether to examine it formally. We are in close touch with the industry. I went to Norway to meet the Norwegian Fisheries Minister and, since then, we have managed to effect a meeting between representatives of the Scottish and Norwegian industries to discuss the major problem of oversupply and the fact that far too many smelts are going into the sea.

Employment Practices

Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will issue guidelines on the employment practices of Scottish councils.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no specific locus in the employment practices of local authorities. It is therefore not appropriate for him to issue guidelines on the subject.

Mr. Oppenheim: We may have to be indulgent when it comes to some of the quainter customs of Scottish Labour politics, but is not one of the quirkier practices that of issuing pink application forms to general applicants for jobs on Monklands district council but green application forms to friends and close relatives of its councillors? Does that novel application of the share and share alike principle explain why so many close friends and relatives of Monklands Labour councillors have jobs on the council? Now that at least some councillors have been honourable enough to stand up against the practice, should not we expect Monklands Members of Parliament to show the same concern about the socialist can of worms on their own doorstep?

Mr. Stewart: As my hon. Friend knows, there has been a continuing silence from Opposition Members on the effect on their constituents of those and similar practices. I understand, however, that the practice that my hon. Friend rightly describes as novel has been abandoned, or at least suspended.

Mr. Ernie Ross: If the Minister is so concerned about the alleged employment practices of local authorities in Scotland, why did he make such a ridiculous statement at the recent conference of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy? He knows that, because of his proposals for the reorganisation of Scottish councils, more than 100,000 local government employees in Scotland are extremely concerned about their employment. Would not it help if he made a statement today saying that those people will be covered by the European Union acquired rights directive, thereby giving peace of mind to employees who do a worthwhile job for all of us in Scotland?

Mr. Stewart: I have paid tribute again and again to the work of Scottish local government employees. I am not sure which of the statements that I made at the conference the hon. Gentleman meant, but I announced there a number


of additional members of the committee that will advise the Secretary of State on matters relating to the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill, and I believe that the nominations were widely accepted as objective.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great concern in Scotland about the revelations that constantly appear in the Scottish press about the employment practices at Monklands? Too many people are now employed by local government to perform specific narrow duties; they are really doing jobs that have been created for friends. Is not it time that my hon. Friend and the Secretary of State took powers to deal with those problems?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend makes the interesting suggestion that the Secretary of State should take additional powers in such matters. Perhaps some of the Opposition Members who have been pressing on the subject will give their full support to any endeavour to take such powers. The Secretary of State's present powers are limited, however. No doubt Opposition Members who regard Monklands district council as a model of perfection and a model of how Scottish Labour authorities should work, will have been confirmed in their belief in the excellence of that council by the recent "Newsnight" coverage.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Let us move things on more rapidly.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Minister accept that there is continuing concern in the city of Aberdeen about the unsatisfactory nature of the recent termination of the chief executive's contract of employment, at a cost of nearly £300,000 to the local community? Does he accept that it is not satisfactory that such a matter should be left entirely to a local council which many people feel has failed to discharge its duties, and that there is no means of securing an independent inquiry? Does not he believe that the rules should be changed to allow for that?

Mr. Stewart: As I said when the hon. Gentleman raised that matter before, I accept his concern about Aberdeen —a concern which has also been expressed across the party political divide. My right hon. Friend and I have examined the Scottish Office's powers in the matter, and my right hon. Friend simply has no locus at present. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to suggest specific legislative changes, we will of course consider them.

Forestry Commission

Mr. Eric Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the Government's proposals for the future of the Forestry Commission in Scotland.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future of the Forestry Commission.

Mr. Lang: My fellow forestry Ministers and I are currently considering the report of the forestry review group, and will make an announcement in due course.

Mr. Clarke: A few months ago, I asked the same question of the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). My constituents and employees at the world-renowned Bush estates research

establishment in Midlothian are wondering what the future holds. Many people in rural areas depend on the Forestry Commission. We are being drip-fed by the press on supposed future changes in non-privatisation policies affecting the commission. The Government have had long enough to consider the matter, and the public are entitled to know what are the Government's policies on a matter that is is of major importance in Scotland.

Mr. Lang: I am not responsible for speculation in the columns of the press, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that among the many considerations that must be taken into account in deciding the way forward for the commission are the circumstances of the many dedicated staff who work for it throughout Scotland. I am keen to remove as soon as possible any uncertainty that exists. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it is important not just to make decisions soon but to get them right.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that virtually every industry that we privatised in the 1980s and 1990s has been successful? The reason is that those privatisations brought about a change in management culture. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the important point in respect of the Forestry Commission is not who owns the land but whether public rights of access are maintained and the forests are managed in an environmentally friendly manner?

Mr. Lang: I agree with my hon. Friend that what matters most for the forestry industry's future is that decisions affecting it are taken in the context of the industry's interests. That includes not only the commercial development and growth of our forests but environmental and recreational considerations, including access, and the need to encourage more planting. We are taking all those issues and others carefully into account in working towards a solution.

Mr. McFall: It is clear that the Government took no account of public opinion from the outset. It took a campaign before the Government surrendered in the face of public opinion. More than 300,000 acres in Scotland have been sold since 1981.

Madam Speaker: Order. Is there a question coming? I have not heard one. Hon. Members should begin with a question, not a statement.

Mr. McFall: Given that the forestry review group's report has been with the Secretary of State for more than two months, will he address the concerns felt in Scotland, so that the public may be reassured that the Government will not achieve by the back door that which the public manifestly do not want them to achieve by the front door?

Mr. Lang: We are keen to take on board all the representations that we have received and continue to receive. We have received 3,600 representations from individuals, and 600 organisations have made their views plain to us. All are being carefully considered. When we bring forward our proposals in due course, members of the public and others will have an opportunity to react to them.

Mr. Kynoch: When my right hon. Friend considers the review group's report, will he bear in mind the singular importance of so-called community woodlands—those at the edge of villages and towns, such as Pannanich woodlands at Ballater in my constituency? Access for the


general public, residents and tourists is extremely important for recreational and leisure activities. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that my constituents enjoy future security of access?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend raises an important point. I assure him that, in our consideration of the way forward, we are taking close account of the importance of community woodlands.

Mr. Maclennan: Does the Secretary of State accept the view of the timber industry that the overwhelming requirement at this time is for more trees to be planted —not to have land sold off, which would divert resources from what is properly required?

Mr. Lang: I agree that the interests of the timber industry are important in our consideration of the issues. The importance of encouraging more planting is central to the way forward. The review group's terms of reference specifically included the need to consider the operation of incentives.

Sir Thomas Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend agree, in the interests of open government, to publish the review group's report?

Mr. Lang: No, we do not propose to publish the report, because the internal review group comprised officials who advise Ministers. However, we shall publish our proposals and there will be plenty of opportunity for all aspects to be fully considered in due course.

Highlands and Islands

Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the economic prospects of the highlands and islands.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am confident that the economic regeneration and diversification currently evident throughout the highlands and islands will continue to flourish as the wider economic recovery being assisted by this Government's policies gathers momentum.

Mr. Macdonald: In the light of the massive defence cuts that are being reported in the newspapers this week, when is there likely to be an announcement on the Royal Artillery range at Benbecula? Does the Minister agree that the range provides excellent and unique facilities for the armed forces, with the full support of the local community? Does he recognise that there is a strong case for its consolidation and expansion, with the use of more contracting out, rather than any talk of cuts or closure?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The matter is still being carefully considered. I understand that a decision is expected in about July. I was present when the hon. Gentleman took a delegation from the Western Isles to see my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement at the Ministry of Defence. I think that it would be fair to say that the delegation stressed, as did the hon. Gentleman, the importance of employment as well as the excellent arrangements that currently exist. No argument was missed. Indeed, mention was even made of the fact that the presence of the artillery range afforded protection for rare bird species, including waders, in the area. I do not think that any arguments were missed.

Mr. Fabricant: Is my hon. Friend aware that representatives of the Scottish tourist board, which is funded by the Scottish Office, recently came to the House to address members of the Conservative Back-Bench tourism committee? Will he applaud the efforts of the board to promote the highlands and islands in the United States of America and in Canada, which will in turn promote the economic interests of the area?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes, indeed. The Western Isles will have a growing tourist industry, which is extremely important to them. Tourism is the largest employer in Scotland, and that employment is growing. It is not the largest employer elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Developments such as the tourist centre at the Callanish stones—the Scottish version of Stonehenge—will attract up to 50,000 visitors to the Western Isles every year. The opening of the Skye bridge will greatly benefit the Western Isles through enormously increased tourism.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: On the question of the Skye bridge, does the Minister accept that the benefit to the Western Isles, to Skye or to the highlands and islands generally will not be helped by the sky-high tolls that the Scottish Office will foist on local people? What will he do to remove that burden and to ensure that objective 1 funding for roads and infrastructure generally is genuine additional funding? We have already seen cuts in the roads budgets for the Highland region since the arrival of objective 1 funding.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: As the hon. Gentleman knows, objective 1 funding will be additional. The bridge tolls will not be higher than the present ferry fares, so nobody will lose. If passenger traffic increases, as we anticipate, there may be scope for adjusting the tolls accordingly. We shall know more about that once the bridge is open. When the tolls have paid off the costs, it will be a free bridge. That is the quickest way the islanders of Skye will ever get a free bridge.

Mr. Trimble: Does the Minister agree that the prospects for the highlands and islands could be improved if the European Community's interregional programme on maritime borders were amended to include maritime regions? Will he join us in trying to persuade the Department of Trade and Industry, which is supposed to represent the entire United Kingdom on this issue, to persuade the Community to amend the Interreg programme to include maritime regions?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that interesting representation, which I will be sure to discuss with my colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry. He will appreciate that I do not have lead responsibility. One of a Minister's first rules is that he should not exceed his responsibilities. I shall, however, follow up the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. John Marshall: Is my hon. Friend aware that this afternoon we have heard of something more remarkable than the conversion of St. Paul on the road to Damascus? Does he appreciate that the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) is now opposed to defence cuts and in favour of contracting out? How much further will the Labour party go?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Attitudes have changed considerably over the 14 years since Margaret


Thatcher came to power. The goalposts have moved significantly. That will be of great significance to our country in future.

Damp Housing, Glasgow

Mr. Davidson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet representatives of community councils and tenants' associations to discuss the problems of damp housing in Glasgow, with particular reference to the Govan constituency.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. Friend has no plans to meet community councils and tenants' associations to discuss damp housing in Glasgow. In the first instance, it is for the City of Glasgow district council to assess the housing needs of its area and to set out its plans for tackling damp housing in the housing plan and capital programme, which it submits to the the Scottish Office.
The council's gross capital allocations for investment in public and private housing total £121.25 million in the current year.

Mr. Davidson: Does the Minister accept that there is a problem of dampness in Glasgow and in my constituency? Does he accept that the money that the Government are allowing the council to spend is inadequate? Does he agree that he should be prepared to meet delegations of those who live in damp housing so that they can explain to him the effect that it has on their lives, the lives of their families and the educational opportunities of their youngsters? Will he not walk by on the other side?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have been acutely aware of the problem since serving on a Select Committee that considered dampness in council houses in Scotland. Since that time, substantial progress has been made. Damp housing is the biggest issue facing housing authorities. They are right to target their efforts to where the problem is most severe. Through the urban regeneration initiatives in Ferguslie Park and Castlemilk, we have proved that that can be done successfully. Housing authorities have to phase and prioritise the work, which will be successfully completed but cannot all be done overnight.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Have not the Government invested a large amount of money in housing improvements in Scotland? Having spent £2.2 billion on housing improvements over the years, would not it be more sensible to ensure that authorities keep their rents at a sensible level so that they can invest in improving the declining number of houses that they still own, while people who have bought their houses make their own improvements at no cost to the public purse?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. In past years, rents have been so low that less has been spent on management and maintenance. If more had been spent on it, there would be less dampness in houses. I confirm that about £900 million is being spent on capital investment in housing. That includes the work of Scottish Homes, the new towns and the local authorities. A lot can be done with £900 million in a year. The work must be prioritised and the most severe problems tackled effectively.

Mr. Wray: Why have the Government been encouraging local authorities in Scotland to implement Rachmanism by allowing them to collect rents for houses that are below tolerable standards? Why do they encourage local authorities not to tell people of their rights under the Public Health (Scotland) Act 1897?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Local authorities have been told that houses that are below tolerable standards must be one of their top four priorities. The hon. Member uses the word "Rachmanism" in relation to public sector authorities. That used to be a slur on the private sector, but I accept that housing that is below tolerable standards must be rooted out wherever it arises.

Local Services

Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss local services.

Mr. McMaster: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss the provision of local services.

Mr. Stewart: As I informed the House on 23 March, my right hon. Friend and I are next scheduled to meet representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on 17 June as part of the normal consultation on local government finance matters.

Mr. Dunnachie: I wish to ask the Minister the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), but to which he received no reply. When the reorganisation in local authorities takes place, will the Minister guarantee that the employees of local authorities will be covered by the European Union acquired rights directive, which will protect their wages, service and conditions, and pensions in the event that they are transferred to another employer?

Mr. Stewart: As I said in the Standing Committee, to which I know I am not allowed to refer, and as I have said on many occasions, the overwhelming number of local authority employees will be transferred to the new authorities.
Of course, in the case of the acquired rights directive, certain cases may have to be decided by the courts. I have, however, made absolutely clear the position in respect of the overwhelming number of local authority employees. We have also set up a staff advisory committee and commission which will examine these and related problems.

Mr. McMaster: As you know, Madam Speaker, I am not one to curry favour, but may I preface my question by wishing you many happy returns on this, the second anniversary of your speakership?
Does the Minister accept that more and more people throughout Scotland do not trust the Tories on taxes, on local government or on their plans for water? Does he realise that people throughout Scotland—no matter what he may claim—believe that these super-quangos will be the building blocks for privatisation? Why does no one believe him?

Mr. Stewart: May we entirely associate ourselves, Madam Speaker, with the hon. Gentleman's first remarks?
I must make it absolutely clear that the Government have no plans to privatise water and sewerage services in Scotland, through the front door, the back door or any other door.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Does my hon. Friend agree that a move to all-purpose, single-tier local authorities will result in more accountable, more local, more responsive, more sensitive and more cost-effective service delivery in the towns and cities of Scotland?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is right. All political parties in Scotland at one time or another have supported the principle of single-tier authorities, because of all the advantages to which my hon. Friend has alluded. It is significant that in his area, the city of Aberdeen, the proposals for a unitary city authority have, as I understand it, been supported by every political party.

Mr. McAllion: When the Minister meets COSLA will he tell it why, after 15 years of Conservative Government, there are still tens of thousands of homeless Scots, hundreds of thousands of Scottish homes riddled with damp and condensation and acute shortages of decent, affordable houses for rent? Is it because the Government's housing policies are succeeding or because they are failing? The people have a right to know.

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for housing has already dealt with that subject, but we shall certainly point out to COSLA that aggregate external finance—Government assistance to Scottish local authorities—per head of population is 46 per cent. higher in Scotland than in England and 24 per cent. higher in Scotland than in Wales. These are the real figures; they demonstrate beyond peradventure the Government's commitment to local authority services in Scotland.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my hon. Friend remind the Opposition that those houses were all built by local authorities under socialist control and were probably designed by socialist planners—and that if there is any complaint about them it should be directed to those who got it so wrong?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. The problems to which Opposition Members have referred are overwhelmingly to be found in socialist-built estates, put up after the last war—that is, within the last generation. The Labour councils that built them entertained misconceived ideas about the sort of living conditions and quality of life that people in Scotland increasingly want. People want a variety of tenure types and it is our policy to provide such a variety.

Mr. Wallace: The Minister said again that the Government do not propose to privatise Scotland's water. In response to the Strathclyde referendum the hon. Gentleman said that the Scottish people either did not understand or did not believe that. Why do the Government have such a crisis of credibility in Scotland?

Mr. Stewart: I do not believe that the Government in any way have a crisis of credibility in Scotland. The principle of single-tier authorities is widely popular. The hon. Gentleman's own experience as the Member of Parliament for a constituency including two island

authorities should suggest to him that the excellent experience there could be effectively translated to mainland Scotland.

Mr. Salmond: Can the Minister give an example of a quasi-democratic Government anywhere that has ever reacted with such arrogance and contempt to an expression of popular will as has marked the Government's response to the million-plus Scots who voted in the water ballot? Does he have no sense of shame at the fact that when we should all be celebrating the rebirth of democracy in South Africa we are witnessing the death of local democracy in Scotland?

Mr. Wilson: What an obscene comparison.

Mr. Stewart: I think that I agree with the sedentary intervention.
Of course every hon. Member welcomes the rebirth of democracy in South Africa and wishes that country well. The hon. Gentleman's comparison is absolutely absurd and will not be generally accepted by supporters of the mainstream political parties in Scotland.

Mr. George Robertson: Is not it revealing that yet again, for the third month running, the Secretary of State for Scotland has chosen to pass the buck for answering questions on local government—the very centrepiece of the legislative programme that is before him? When the Minister meets COSLA, will he be ready for the anger and disgust that that body will show at what the Government propose to do to Scotland's water? Does he not yet appreciate that all the promises about privatisation that are being made by a Government tainted by their deceit on taxation can never convince the Scottish people that water will not eventually end up in the hands of people who will seek to make profits from it? The people of Scotland want their precious, unique and plentiful supplies of water to be in the hands of locally elected, locally accountable representatives, not in the dubious care of the hand-picked cronies of the Conservative party, and they will express that view next Thursday in the regional elections.

Mr. Stewart: There is a question specifically about water further down on the Order Paper. However, I put it to the hon. Gentleman that the deceit on this issue is the continuing deceit of Opposition Members, who try to pretend to people in Scotland that the Government's proposals are quite different from what they very clearly are.

Sheltered Housing, Glasgow

Mr. Michael J. Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans Scottish Homes has to build sheltered housing in Glasgow.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: In 1993–94, Scottish Homes invested £3.5 million in sheltered housing projects for the elderly in Glasgow. In the current year, this provision is expected to increase to £4.5 million. Over the two-year period, this represents the provision of 146 additional units.

Mr. Martin: May I draw the attention of the Under-Secretary of State to the Royston road district in my constituency, where there are several housing estates—the Charles street fiats, Blochairn and, further up the road, Germiston? Many of the residents have lived there all their


lives—some of the housing is pre-war—and now require sheltered accommodation. I urge the Minister to ask Scottish Homes to put some of the £4 million into an area that badly needs sheltered housing. In fact, there is not a single sheltered housing project there.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will make inquiries on the hon. Gentleman's behalf to see whether this can be done or could be fitted into a future programme as soon as practicable and will let him know how I get on. This year, the provision for special needs projects in Glasgow is expected to be about £12 million overall.

Local Government Reform

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of the transitional costs of local government reform.

Mr. Lang: My latest estimate of the transitional costs of local government reform is that they will be considerably outweighed by savings as the new councils become established.

Mr. Dalyell: I return to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie). What categories of individuals affected by the acquired rights directive do the Government have in mind when they say that they have to go to court?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman should look at the reply already given by my hon. Friend the Minister. The hon. Gentleman's question is about the estimated transitional costs of local government reform. I have already said that they will be far outweighed by savings. For example, Angus anticipates savings of £8.5 million over 15 years, while the Borders region expects £22 million over the same period.

Mr. Norman Hogg: In reply to an earlier question from my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), the Under-Secretary of State said that he could not recall the detail of his speech to the CIPFA conference. Indeed, it was an unmemorable speech. However, the hon. Gentleman said that in the reorganisation of local government, local authority staff should—I think this was the phrase—go for management buy-outs if their jobs were under threat. What sort of advice is that for local government officials who have served local government well? In addition, would not that add to the costs of the reorganisation, which in any event are likely to get out of hand?

Mr. Lang: When the hon. Gentleman checks the official record of my hon. Friend's speech, he will realise that he did not represent his words accurately.
On the hon. Gentleman's question about the future of local authority staff, my hon. Friend made it quite clear that the vast majority will transfer to new local authorities. The Opposition's estimates of the costs of local government reform are specifically and largely related to implied redundancies, which are likely to be relatively limited. However, to the extent that they do lead to additional costs, those will be more than outweighed—and in the longer term substantially outweighed—by subsequent savings.

Mr. McLeish: Why are the Government deliberately flouting European legislation by refusing to transfer all local authority employees to the new unitary councils? If

every one of the 300,000 local government work force was transferred, along with TUPE and the acquired rights directives, there would be no financial savings from the reorganisation. Would not that further wreck the Government's crumbling credibility on this disastrous, divisive and highly dangerous piece of legislation? Or is it just another piece of irresponsible behaviour by the Government, who are willing to put the workers, their families and their livelihoods into the political arena? How can the Secretary of State genuinely want to save 30,000 jobs if he is putting them on the scrapheap of Scotland, where there are already 230,000 people looking for work?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is clearly confused and muddled about the whole exercise. Redundancies probably will result from local government reform. Indeed, I think it desirable that local authorities should be run more efficiently. We should halve the number of local authorities. To the extent that there are redundancies, those will lead to more substantial savings. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.

European Regional Fund

Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total value of grants that Scotland has received from the European regional fund since its inception.

Mr. Stewart: Since the inception of the European regional development fund in 1975, Scotland has benefited from awards totalling almost £1.2 billion.

Sir David Knox: Does not that show the European Community's commitment, through the structural funds, to Scotland's needs? Can my hon. Friend tell us how different parts of Scotland will benefit over the next few years?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is right to point to the figures, which underline the European Community's commitment to Scotland through those funds. He asked about the benefits over the next few years. The highlands and islands will receive £240 million over six years, under objective 1 status. The west and east of Scotland will receive £330 million between them over the next three years, under objective 2 status. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry announced earlier this week, £108 million will be available to Dumfries and Galloway, Borders, north and west Grampian and rural Stirling and uplands Tayside over the next six years, under objective 5b status. That shows that there will be significant benefits throughout Scotland.

Ms Rachel Squire: Does the Minister agree that no amount of European regional funding can compensate the Scottish economy, and particularly the Fife economy, for the Government's anti-Rosyth bias and for the broken promises and policies which have led to mass unemployment? Does he further agree that no amount of European regional funds can compensate for the loss of 6,712 jobs which are related to Rosyth naval base? Will he commit himself to ensuring that the Prime Minister keeps the clear and categorical commitment that he made in 1991 that Rosyth naval base would stay operational?

Mr. Stewart: I wholly reject the hon. Lady's allegation that the Government are in some way anti-Rosyth. The case for the dockyard and the base has been put forward with great vigour by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
In relation to the specific question of the future of the naval base, the hon. Lady will know from the statement of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence that the Ministry is examining all aspects of defence support activity, of which naval infrastructure is just one area. It is regrettable that there has been a great deal of what I fear may be damaging speculation.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware that, while I welcome the money from the European Union that will come to uplands Tayside, I do not forget that every pound which comes from the European Union costs the taxpayers in the United Kingdom in excess of £1.60 to get it back? Is not it important to recognise that we are getting our own money back, albeit considerably reduced in value?

Mr. Stewart: I do not want to get involved in an extended answer to my hon. Friend's arithmetic. His views on the matter are always put with great vigour and robustness, but I am glad that he welcomes the assistance to north Tayside and his constituency.

Mr. Kirkwood: While I welcome the capital allocation from Europe that the Minister has just announced in terms of objective 5b for the Borders, may I ask the Minister to accept that the cuts in capital consents for the Borders region for next year make it impossible—nearly—for the council to take any advantage of those funds because, of course, European funds must be matched from national resources?

Mr. Stewart: European structural funding for the Borders, as elsewhere, is fully additional to the bodies which receive it, and for local authorities that means additional section 94 consent. Matching funding, to which the hon. Gentleman is referring, must come from each organisation's existing capital expenditure plans. I believe that that acts to encourage value for money from European-funded projects.

Mr. George Robertson: May I return to the statement by the Minister on the damaging speculation about Rosyth, especially in relation to potential claims against the European regional fund? I agree with the Minister that the speculation about Rosyth is extremely damaging, and no more damaging than to the thousands of human beings in that part of the world whose jobs depend on it.
I remind the Minister of the words of the Secretary of State for Scotland in 1991:
I am glad that the Prime Minister has recognised the strength of the arguments for Rosyth and the case I advanced in support".
Will the pledges about Rosyth be repeated here today? Will the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister tell the House that they stand by the commitments to Rosyth, or will this go down as yet another broken promise in the encyclopaedia of deception of which the Government are guilty?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is being pretty ingenious—but, of course, in order—in asking that question in relation to European regional development funds. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence have made the position absolutely clear.

Scottish Water

Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with Scottish local water authorities over the future of Scottish Water.

Mr. Lang: Many local authorities responded during the Government's extensive public consultation last year. It is regrettable that they have been prevented from having constructive discussion with the Scottish Office by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities'campaign of non-co-operation.

Mr. McKelvey: Nevertheless, does not the Secretary of State begin to get more than an inkling that the people of Scotland simply do not trust the Government on their future plans for water? They're no' daft. They have observed what happened in England. The water boards that were set up were replaced by quangos and the water was then flogged off. The results were higher prices and thousands of people deprived of a water supply. We will not tolerate that in Scotland. If the Secretary of State wishes to allay the fears of people in Scotland, why does not he scrap the present plans for water or, if we must have boards, let them have a majority of elected councillors or other elected representatives.

Mr. Lang: The reform of the water and sewerage industry in Scotland is driven by the fact that, with the disappearance of many regional authorities, it is necessary to find new arrangements to ensure that water and sewerage are delivered as efficiently and cheaply as possible. That is the motive behind the establishment of three publicly owned water authorities. Privatisation is not part of that plan and does not enter into our considerations.

Mr. Gallie: Will my right hon. Friend accept my welcome for the three publicly owned water and sewerage authorities in Scotland? Does he anticipate, as I do, a better service for my constituents as a consequence, particularly when one thinks of the sewerage provisions? Beaches in my constituency have been branded among the dirtiest in Europe. Strathclyde plans to build, rather belatedly, a sewage plant up against new housing, behind a beach and beneath Greenan castle. Surely things can only get better.

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must put a question. I want Members to be brisk. I have said so many times.

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. It is precisely to take account of the need for new investment such as that identified by my hon. Friend that we propose the development of the three new publicly owned water authorities.

Mr. Foulkes: The Secretary of State has again ruled out the privatisation of water. Will he confirm that the new quangos would have power to franchise out all or some of their services to private companies? Will he rule that out as well?

Mr. Lang: I certainly will not rule out the attraction of private sector finance into the industry. That is one of the reasons why we went for the system that we did. To enable the public water authorities to raise money in the private sector for new capital investment while they continue to control and own the assets of the industry is precisely the way to relieve the pressure on the Scottish Office block and


prevent the need to take money away from housing, roads, health, education and all the other matters that the hon. Gentleman and his party regard as so important.

Mr. Galbraith: Will the Secretary of State give an undertaking that the members of the new water and sewerage boards will all be elected? What does the Secretary of State have against democracy? Is it just that every time he tries it, he loses?

Mr. Lang: I am a strong supporter of democracy, as my record bears testimony to and as the local government results on 5 May will demonstrate. Membership of the water authorities and other matters are still to be decided, but there will certainly be local authority representation on them, alongside the necessary skills that we shall need from the business community to ensure the efficient operation of those authorities for the benefit of consumers.

Woodland

Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of the United Kingdom is covered in woodland; and what was the figure in 1964 and 1980.

Sir Hector Monro: About 10 per cent of the United Kingdom is covered by woodland. The proportion was 7 per cent. in 1964 and 9 per cent. in 1980.

Mr. Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for an extremely helpful reply. I am sure that it will please all Members.

Why has that increase taken place and what steps will he take to ensure that the amount of woodland continues to grow? Does he agree that woodland is a valuable wildlife habitat?

Sir Hector Monro: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend's latter point. It is important that we enhance the environment through Forestry Commission and private woodlands. One of the responsibilities of the review group has been to advise on incentives to increase planting by giving that careful consideration and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will report to the House in due course. We need to increase planting, especially of conifers, to ensure a healthy timber industry in the future.

Mr. Worthington: Is not it true that most of the forests that were sold off did not have access agreements, so people have been denied access to the countryside? Will the Minister undertake that, whatever is proposed for the control of forests, freedom to roam and access are not merely one of the considerations, but the top consideration?

Sir Hector Monro: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. Only one access agreement has been reached with a local authority because local authorities have been slow to discuss the matter with us and to come to management agreements. That will be an important part of my right hon. Friend's consideration of the review group's advice. Access has a very high priority.

House of Commons Emblem

Madam Speaker: I undertook, in response to a point of order yesterday, to make a statement on the rules relating to the use of the House emblem for party political purposes. Those rules are clearly set out in the "Members Handbook" and in a separate leaflet published by the Serjeant at Arms. They make it clear that the designs and symbols of the House should not be used for purposes to which such authentication is inappropriate or where there is a risk that their use might wrongly be regarded as having the authority of the House.
In particular, neither the crowned portcullis nor the royal arms, whether or not associated with the words "House of Commons", may be used
in connection with…supporting the return of any person to public office.
The application of those rules rests on the good sense of individual Members. Where they have any doubt about their application, Members should consult the Serjeant at Arms.

Mrs. Jane Kennedy: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have listened carefully to your statement, and I have received the letter that you sent to me. I am grateful for your response and for your defence of the rights and privileges associated with being a Member of this House.
However, can you confirm that, in 1986, the then leader of the Liberal party gave the same explanation for an exactly similar breach of the rules in an election campaign, and was reprimanded in the same way? I ask for your guidance as to whether that conduct could be construed as a deliberate and calculated campaign to distort the rules of this House, and whether it is a contempt.

Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Further to my point of order yesterday, Madam Speaker. Can you confirm that, having received the letter in which you asked me for evidence that the breach of the rules was on-going, I have given you today the names and addresses of constituents in Liverpool who have received the same letter with the same letterhead since the undertaking given to you?

Madam Speaker: I received the later undertaking some time around lunchtime—at about the same time as the hon. Gentleman sent me a letter. I believe that the dates in his letter are not clear, but I have not yet had an opportunity to examine his correspondence.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Just a moment.
I think that I have made a very clear statement today. If any Members have any criticism of another Member of this House, the usual procedure is to refer the matter to an appropriate Committee or to table a substantive motion about the Member's behaviour. That is the way in which we have always proceeded. If the two hon. Members who represent Liverpool are not satisfied, that is the way in which they must proceed.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: As far as the Chair is concerned, that is the end of the matter. If there is another point of order, I am willing to hear it, but that matter is closed.

Mr. Simon Burns: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Is it another point of order?

Mr. Burns: It is a general point and is not specifically to do with the point—

Madam Speaker: It had better be a different point of order, because I have just made a statement to the House and the hon. Gentleman is not entitled to raise that matter again. Is he going to rethink? I shall ask him to resume his seat if he is raising that same point of order again.

Mr. Burns: As it is a general point of order, I will try not to test your patience, Madam Speaker. If it is perceived that an hon. Member has, unintentionally or otherwise, made a mistake according to the rules of the House, is it customary for that hon. Member then to apologise to the House for the mistake that has been made?

Madam Speaker: That is a rather hypothetical question. I hope that most hon. Members would have sufficient good manners to do that, but I am afraid that during my Speakership they have not always done so.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. There is, with your permission, another way to proceed about this matter.

Madam Speaker: I hope that my authority is not being challenged by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Faulds: I am trying to back it up, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: That makes a change. I will hear the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Faulds: Madam Speaker, as you know, I have been a long-time supporter, colleague and admirer—I love you dearly. But I do have a simple resolution to the problem. There has been persistent misuse of this emblem over my many years in the House. There is one way that it could be satisfactorily resolved. The House of Commons emblem should be branded on the left or right haunch of hon. Members, depending on their party affiliation, when they have offended.

Madam Speaker: As usual, that is a frivolous remark from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I have taken into account what you have said, but I would like you to clarify one point. If, before the local elections, I sent a letter on House of Commons paper to the constituents of another hon. Member with the intention of ensuring the election of, say, a Labour candidate over a Liberal Democrat candidate, would I be in order?

Madam Speaker: Perhaps I should repeat the words so that they are very clear. In particular, neither the crowned portcullis nor the royal arms, whether or not associated with … the words "House of Commons", may be used
in connection with … supporting the return of any person to public office.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On this historic day in South Africa, would it not be a good idea to get hold of one of those pieces of paper with the House of Commons crest and send congratulations to Nelson Mandela on behalf of those of us


who supported him in his long campaign to end apartheid and to get the vote? You would be doing a wonderful job if you sent it on behalf of those who wish to send such a letter. I will find you such a piece of paper if you do not have any—or I will borrow it from the hon. Gentleman.

Madam Speaker: As a matter of fact, I do not think I have that sort of notepaper; I have only my own notepaper, which carries the Speaker's emblem.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Given the point that you have already made about the politicisation of the portcullis and crown, do you not believe that there could be a saving to the House—and indeed a depoliticisation—if we just stuck to using paper with a green emblem instead of having blue and red also?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is taking me to pastures new, about which I shall make no comment at this time.

Company Accounts (Payments to Creditors)

Mr. Anthony Coombs: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to ensure the publication of information relating to the payment of company creditors and to encourage prompt settlement; and for connected purposes.
This is not a new subject—indeed, over the years it has received a great deal of parliamentary and outside attention. One of the purposes of my Bill is to try to ensure more prompt payment within commerce, particularly to small companies, where prompt payment may actually determine their long-term viability.
The background to the Bill is that, in 1992, the Government said in the Budget that they would be prepared to issue two consultation papers—which were subsequently released in January and May 1993—about how to improve prompt payment of creditors in commerce. That decision followed a 1978 Law Commission report about the rate of statutory interest for commercial debts, a 1986 report about payment by the Confederation of British Industry entitled "A Guide to Good Practice", as well as a great deal of parliamentary activity in the last few years.
That culminated in the Interest on Debts Bill for commercial contracts, which was introduced in 1990 by the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates). It also resulted in an early-day motion, which had the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House—as does my Bill —and was signed by no fewer than 129 Members. That early-day motion was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), who is now Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs at the Department of Trade and Industry.
I appreciate that the Government are consulting on how to improve prompt payment in commerce, because it is a significant problem, particularly for smaller companies. The CBI has estimated that, at any one time, those companies alone are owed £100 million in overiue rather than late debts. The Times recently estimated that the cost to industry of late payment is about £1.5 billion a year, which is equal to the entire amount injected into the venture capital industry in any one year.
The problem of late payment primarily affects small companies, for three reasons. First, they do not have the commercial clout to ensure that creditors pay up. That is emphasised to me time and again by small companies in my area. Secondly, the administration for recovering debt is relatively and proportionately much more expensive for small companies. Thirdly, late payment is a particular problem for small companies because they generate a significant number of the new jobs upon which we rely. The labour force survey has estimated that, up until the end of the 1980s, small companies generated 1.85 million jobs—13 times more than those generated by their larger brethren.
If we are to maintain successful small companies and the investment they make, it is crucial that they are paid on time. It has been estimated that 50 per cent. of British companies rely upon short-term debt, so prompt payment is all the more important for them than it is for German companies, where only 14 per cent. rely on such debt.
Prompt payment is a current problem rather than one of the past, because, as we come out of recession, more and more companies want to upgrade their activities, invest in


stock and additional debtors. As a result of such activities those companies will be subject to a certain amount of financial pressure. Trade Indemnity has blamed late payment for the fact that, despite the economic upturn, there was an 11 per cent. rise in first quarter business failures compared with the previous three months. That is why Trade Indemnity's chief economist, William Simpson, has said:
For two quarters the running, average value of unpaid debt has risen. The scale of unpaid debt threatens many otherwise successful firms, despite economic recovery.
Many possible solutions to the problem have been suggested. One of the most important is the attempt to try to change the culture within which people trade. Richard Brucciani, chairman of the CBI's smaller firms council, has said:
The problem of late payment requires a change of culture and attitude in business, and a published statement of corporate payment policy"—
that is one of the two suggestions in my Bill—
would give suppliers a useful insight into this.
Because of the shortage of time, I will not describe the possible solutions proposed by the Federation of Small Businesses, the CBI and the Government to promote prompt payment. One of the most prominent of those suggestions, however, is the imposition of a statutory rate of interest on overdue debts, but opinion on the desirability of such a solution is not unanimous. It appears that the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors are prepared to support it, although the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Chartered Association of Certified Accountants all have reservations.
A statutory rate of interest would have many disadvantages. It would require companies to undertake additional administration. It might institutionalise late payment, rewarding it by a statutory rate of interest, in the sense that it is likely to be informally ignored by small companies which want further business from their larger customers. It has not been noticeably successful in encouraging prompt payment in France or Germany, where it currently operates. Hence I make two proposals today, which are simple and which do something to change the business culture in the way that I have described.
My first proposal is that every public company—public companies are generally synonymous with larger companies—should be required to make a statement of its

payment patterns and its payment policy in its audited accounts. If it is a conglomerate, it would have to do it on a subsidiary or a sectoral basis.
The CBI has suggested a specific form of statement:
It is this company's policy to negotiate payment terms with suppliers at the outset of the deal and to pay within the time scale agreed.
In a sense, that says everything and nothing. It is peace and motherhood; it is a statement of good intentions. Although I am sure that we shall all be happy with it, people wish to know not only whether companies sign up to prompt payment, especially the larger companies, but whether they carry it out in practice. That is why my second proposal is crucial if we are to change the culture in the way that we have described.
My second proposal is that every public company should be required to publish an analysis of the aging of its creditors in its public accounts, so that creditors or shareholders or institutions or the general public can see to what extent its practice matches its rhetoric. There are many ways of doing that. The Institute of Chartered Accountants, in its reply to the Government consultation document, mentioned three. They all have different drawbacks and different benefits.
I am absolutely sure that it is not beyond the wit of the accountancy profession to come up with an easily understandable, reasonably consistent, way of describing the aging of creditors and the way in which firms fulfil the pledges they give about prompt payments in their company accounts that would allow potential customers to decide whether it was worth while dealing with those companies in advance rather than after the event, as would be the case with the statutory rate of interest.
My view is that, in the sense that it would give forewarning to small companies of late payment of debt, that would be a valuable measure. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Anthony Coombs, Mr. Michael Colvin, Mr. Nigel Griffiths, Sir Anthony Durant, Mr. Bob Dunn, Mr. Malcolm Bruce, Mr. Keith Mans, Mr. David Evans, Mr. Sebastian Coe, Mr. John Sykes, Mr. David Martin, Mr. Simon Burns.

COMPANY ACCOUNTS (PAYMENTS TO CREDITORS)

Mr. Anthony Coombs accordingly presented a Bill to ensure the publication of information relating to the payment of company creditors and to encourage prompt settlement; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20 May, and to be printed. [Bill 100.]

Orders of the Day — Intelligence Services Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 1

TRADE UNION RIGHTS (GCHQ)

'In fulfilling the functions specified in section 3 of this Act, staff at GCHQ shall enjoy trade union rights in accordance with Convention 87 of the International Labour Organisation.'.—[Dr. John Cunningham.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. John Cunningham: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is not a new issue; indeed, it is a long-standing issue, and one on which Government and Opposition are completely divided. It involves what we consider to be the fundamental right of everyone to belong to a trade union: that is a basic principle in any democracy, and we make no apology for reasserting our view on it today.
In 1949, the United Kingdom ratified convention 87 of the International Labour Organisation, which set out this right along with many others. From the time of that Labour Government onwards—through many Conservative Administrations—that presented no problems to us as a nation; only in 1984 did the Conservative Government led by Lady Thatcher decide to remove the right from a group of workers at the Government communications headquarters at Cheltenham.
Understandably and properly, those people have been fighting for its re-establishment ever since—with the support of the Labour party, the Trades Union Congress and, I believe, the Liberal party, along with other parliamentary parties—in the face of the consistent and obstinate opposition of an obdurate Government. The new clause would re-establish the right unequivocally.

Mr. Roger Evans: The right hon. Gentleman has stated in very broad terms that everyone has the right to join a trade union. Is he seriously suggesting that members of the armed forces should have such a right? That would go well beyond the terms of the International Labour Organisation convention, quite apart from being rather a startling proposition.

Dr. Cunningham: In fact, it would not terrify me if they had such a right. In this instance, however, it was arbitrarily removed from people who had formerly enjoyed it.

Mr. Rupert Allason: It was not removed arbitrarily.

Hon. Members: Yes, it was.

Dr. Cunningham: As usual, the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) is intervening from a sedentary position. He says that the action was not arbitrary, but it was taken without consultation. It was pointed out in the courts that the decision was against all natural justice: if that is not arbitrary, I do not know what is.
The matter has been discussed at great length over the years, most recently in 1993. It is to the credit of the unions

involved that they have been willing to make considerable concessions about ring-fencing the members involved and no-strike agreements; they have gone as far as anyone could realistically expect them to go in trying to meet the point on which the Government insisted.
Originally, the Government's position was that trade union membership somehow presented a threat to the security of our country, which was patent and absolute nonsense. No one ever explained why men and women at GCHQ who belonged to trade unions were a threat to our security, while members of the First Division Association in Whitehall—an organisation affiliated to the TUC, and probably handling a much greater volume of more sensitive and secret information—remained perfectly acceptable, and presented no such threat. That completely exposed the fallacy of the Government's argument.
The concessions were offered during a series of discussions, first with the Cabinet Secretary and then with the Prime Minister himself. The Prime Minister retreated to the position that being a member of a trade union at GCHQ would present a "conflict of loyalty." That is another general phrase that has not been defined or explained. If a conflict of loyalty is involved in belonging to a trade union at GCHQ, why does not the same apply to the Ministry of Defence and, indeed, the Cabinet Office?
That was simply another excuse to get the Government out of having to concede that the decision was wrong in principle when it was made, that it remains wrong in principle and that it has become a kind of political totem pole for a Conservative Government, and a Conservative party, with no credible or respectable arguments or evidence to support their position.
That puts Britain in a unique and unenviable position. Alone among western democracies, Britain has been isolated because it is in conflict with not only convention 87 of the ILO but that body's decision in 1991, when the conference voted by 160 to one against Britain. A decision similar to that taken by the Government has not been and would not be contemplated by any of our neighbours and partners in the European Union, by the United States of America or by any other democratic country.
A further bit of double-speak, if that is the appropriate phrase—it generally is for Ministers of this Government —is that the Government are sometimes moved to express
criticism of other countries' human rights records. We
often join the Government in doing so, but the reality is that, as long as the ban persists, the Government's own human rights record will always be open to criticism, and that criticism will continue.
It was recently the 10th anniversary of the decision, first, to remove the right to trade union membership, and, secondly, to dismiss a number of people from their employment when they refused to surrender what they regarded as an inalienable right for them, their colleagues and for people in general. That anniversary was commemorated in a rally, and we wish to make it clear —it is obvious, in any event—that those people and the unions that represent them intend to continue their campaign until they have succeeded in their aim.
It is now clear to them, and, I think, to the country at large, that they will succeed only when the Government have left office and been replaced by a Labour Government who will restore rights to people working at GCHQ. We would lose no time in doing so.
It is not tenable for the Government to persist in their mulish obstinacy, especially as, following the discussions


that took place and the concessions that were made, there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that Britain's security would be threatened in any way if the Government were finally to admit that they had made a mistake, and reversed their decision.

Mr. David Winnick: My right hon. Friend may remember that, on the 10th anniversary of the decision, I was given leave, after a Division, to bring in a ten-minute Bill. Will he take this opportunity to pay tribute to the 14 employees who were sacked because they refused to give up their trade union membership but who defended their principles, as dissidents have done in different circumstances in, for example, the Soviet Union? Those people continue their campaign to this day. Are they not the very best of our citizens, people who refuse to be intimidated but who stand up for their principles and wait for the time when victory will be theirs?

Dr. Cunningham: I certainly pay tribute to those men and women, because they are willing to make sacrifices to fight for what they believe to be right. It is exactly such people—those with determination and principles—that our country needs above all others. It is on such determination to defend democratic rights and principles that our long-term survival as a democratic society depends. They deserve a generous and fulsome tribute and they have it from the Labour party as a whole and from its individual members. We shall continue to give them the support which my hon. Friend has outlined, and which was so admirably conveyed to the House when he introduced his Bill.
Both in Britain and in the international community, the Government have no arguments, no friends and no credibility on this issue. They have no reason not to admit that the original decision was wrong, and was a violation of people's democratic rights—one that could easily be corrected without people being further humiliated by the Government's claim that somehow they simply could not be trusted to safeguard the interests of our country.
We regard that as not only nonsense but a real denial of the long and honourable record of so many people who worked at GCHQ, precisely because they were interested in defending the democratic rights of our country 'and of all its citizens.

Mr. Allason: Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that the Government's decision was not arbitrary, but was a response to a specific request initiated by Sir Brian Tovey, who was then director of GCHQ, that the Government should ban unions if they were unable to give the assurances required following the industrial action taken when the Soviets imposed martial law in Poland and invaded Afghanistan?

Dr. Cunningham: I have already dealt once with the hon. Gentleman's assertion that the decision was not arbitrary. It was arbitrary, and a judge in court decided that it was. As for the merits or otherwise of industrial action, that matter is behind us now.

Mr. Allason: Ah.

Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do about the discussions between the Cabinet Secretary and representatives of the unions, and the discussions involving the Prime Minister. In those discussions, the

unions gave undertakings that they stand by. Even if I conceded that there was a problem in the first place, which I do not, there is no such problem any more.
Far more working time is lost at GCHQ because of sickness and other valid reasons for absence from work than has ever been lost because of industrial action. A previous Conservative Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Nott—

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. David Davis): Sir John Nott. He has not got a peerage yet.

Dr. Cunningham: He had better get one soon, because his chances will run out after the next general election.
Sir John Nott is on record as having said unequivocally that at no time had the operational efficiency of GCHQ ever been in jeopardy.

Mr. Douglas French: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to identify which of the 14 people referred to by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)—the people who declined to give up their trade union membership—took part in the strikes of 1979 to 1981?

Dr. Cunningham: No, but I am not sure why the hon. Gentleman asks. This is not a question of who did and who did not take part in industrial action. People have a legitimate right to take part in industrial action; that is another right in a democratic society.
The fact is that those people stuck to their principles, refused to resign their membership of a union of their choice, and were dismissed as a result. That is the issue of principle here, not whether they or their colleagues were involved in industrial disputes. I suppose that the hon. Gentleman's intervention means that he does not believe that people should have the right to take industrial action in a democratic society. If so, we disagree with him about that too.
Having re-read our exchanges on Second Reading and in Committee, and having studied the record of the negotiations and discussions between the unions and the Government, I can say that the Government have not got a leg to stand on. They have no arguments, no justification, no support and no credibility.

Sir Peter Emery: Before the right hon. Gentleman finishes, will he give way?

Dr. Cunningham: I am trying to finish.

Sir Peter Emery: The right hon. Gentleman claimed that the opinion must be for protecting the human rights of the individuals in question. Was not an appeal made to the European Court of Human Rights? If so, what was the outcome?

Dr. Cunningham: The reference to the European Court of Human Rights was rejected, but not on its merits. The application to the International Labour Organisation was supported in international law—the Government are always priding themselves on taking a stance based on international law. Britain is a signatory to the convention but the Government reneged on it. I believe that the matter will, justifiably, return to the ILO later this year. I have no doubt that the case and the democratic rights of the individuals in question will be upheld once more.
The Government have no case in international law or on the basis of democratic rights. They have no evidence to support their allegations about conflict of loyalty. The Government have no supporters and no friends. If they had any sense—sadly, they do not have any of that either—they would accept new clause 1, and we could put this sad, sorry and squalid episode behind us.

Mr. Roger Evans: The right hon. Gentleman began by making the extravagant observation that everybody in a democratic society has a right to join a trade union. If he will pledge a future Labour Government—if ever such a fantastic creature came to office—to permitting trade unions in the armed services of this country, he should clearly say so. When I put it to him that that was perhaps a little embarrassing, or even a little controversial, he sidestepped the question by saying this was a case of taking away existing rights. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has some Tory respect for existing rights. That is a reactionary viewpoint but at least one that I respect.
Convention 87, to which a Labour Government signed up, specifically excludes the armed services from its ambit. In most countries, organisations engaged in highly confidential matters— [Interruption.] I will happily give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

Dr. Cunningham: I will try to shorten the hon. Gentleman's bogus argument. When people enlist in the armed forces, they do so as volunteers, and they know in advance that the right to union membership does not apply to them.

Mr. Evans: The right hon. Gentleman should try arguing that in France, which has conscription; or in any country where there is conscription. The right hon. Gentleman makes an utterly spurious point. In most countries, an organisation of the type of GCHQ is, rightly and properly, run by the armed services. The fact that it is historically not so in this country in modern times is an accident.

Mr. Allan Rogers: The hon. Gentleman should investigate the matter a little further. Different categories of people work for the state. Those who work for MI6, for example, are Crown servants—and as such are precluded from joining trade unions. People who join the armed forces know that they are not allowed to join trade unions. The ILO convention specifically acknowledges that provision. Other countries in Europe, such as Holland and France, may allow trade unionists in their armed forces. That is their business and has nothing to do with the argument.

Mr. Evans: I was making the point that a secret intelligence-gathering by interception operation of the type of GCHQ is often run by the armed services in other countries, because such an operation is of fundamental national importance.
Another Labour Government signed up in 1978 to ILO convention 151. Perhaps realising that armed forces and police was too narrow an exemption, it added workers engaged in work of a highly confidential nature. It has always been the Government's case that they are not in breach of those two conventions taken together. At committee and conference level, the ILO has been critical, but it has not appointed a commission of inquiry or taken

the British Government to the International Court of Justice, which ultimately would be able to rule on whether there has been a breach of the convention.

Mr. Rogers: Again, the hon. Gentleman has shown appalling ignorance. The ILO did not proceed to take action against the United Kingdom because the British members gave an assurance that they would reconsider the issue. That happened last year. There will be a report again this year because of the way in which the matter was dismissed.

Mr. Evans: More huff and puff by those who wish to create a protest.
The campaign that has been mounted by Opposition Members is wholly without merit. It is an unconvincing argument to liken to the Tolpuddle martyrs the 14 who refused the offers made to them. It is being suggested that the 14 are victims of a democratic process going wrong. In fact, they were paid generous compensation by the Government. The background suggests that there is something extremely odd about the campaign of protest that has been mounted.
If certificates were signed by the Secretary of State under employment protection legislation—the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) did not take this point on board—that would implement the arrangements that the Government have proposed, and were that power to be removed, there would be the possibility of industrial tribunals having jurisdiction to try cases arising out of employment arrangements. That is quite apart from any question of trade union organisation leading to the unacceptable disruption that took place from 1979 to 1981. Anyone who has had any connection with the process of industrial tribunals will be well aware that large amounts of information can be requested properly—it is extremely difficult to stop it being produced by means of public interest immunity certificates—and the entire operation of an organisation can be examined in public.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Is the hon. Gentleman able to cite any industrial tribunal hearing during which the chairman and members of the tribunal rejected an argument founded on national security?

Mr. Evans: I have no doubt that it would be argued powerfully that it was not an issue of national security. That would be the applicant's case. He would argue that he had been unfairly treated for a host of reasons, including the decisions of his superiors and the processes and procedures within the organisation. As a result, everything would be laid bare for the public to see. That would be wrong.
This is an issue of public duties, not of human rights, that bear on those who serve their country in GCHQ extremely well. They should not be allowed to behave in the way in which trade unionists in GCHQ conducted themselves from 1979 to 1981. The Government were driven to do what they did by the needs of the public and the interests of the Government and the state. The argument mounted by Opposition Members is complete nonsense.

Mr. Rogers: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would get his facts right. The industrial disruption to which he refers took place in 1981. The arbitrary reaction, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said,


took place in 1984. If the disruption was such a bad thing in 1981, why did the Government wait three years before introducing the banning of trade unions at GCHQ?

Mr. Evans: That was the result of the squawks of protest that Opposition Members managed bogusly to produce. What happened between 1979 and 1981 was unacceptable and remains unacceptable. The clause should be resisted.

Mr. Winnick: There is a basic conflict between Labour Members and Conservative Members. It is unfortunate—I think that my assertion will be proved right—that no Conservative Member will today support the lifting of the ban on trade union organisation at GCHQ. We question the democratic credentials of Tory Members time and time again, and their reaction to this particular issue demonstrates the criticism that we make of them.
Unfortunately, there are far too many Members—certainly this is the position on the Conservative Benches —who do not understand human rights issues. They did not understand human rights issues in South Africa during the long horror of apartheid in that country. Here at home they seem not to understand the basic right of individuals to belong to a trade union at their place of employment.
Until the ban in 1984 the Government had no difficulty with the issue. I know that Conservative Members and the Minister will refer to industrial action, but one thing is certain—and I think that the records will bear this out: no Minister came to the House and complained about what was happening at GCHQ. I agree that the Government were not happy with the industrial action that took place in the early 1980s, but we were not prepared for the statement in the House on 25 January 1984 by the then Foreign Secretary, now Lord Howe, announcing that there would be a ban on all trade unions at GCHQ.

I said in an intervention during the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland that one pays tribute to the 14 who refused to sign. Can one imagine the amount of pressure that there must have been on all employees at GCHQ? I do not criticise those employees—the majority —who signed. They obviously wanted to continue to work. No doubt they took the view that it would have been extremely difficult to find alternative work. Like other people throughout the country, they had commitments. No matter how much they would have liked to have stuck with their trade union membership, in the prevailing circumstances they had no alternative. They did not want a transfer. They wanted to continue the work in which they were experts, so they signed. They were given a certain amount of time to sign the document and some money. If they belonged to a trade union, they had to sign a document giving up that right. It is disgraceful that in our democracy citizens should be forced into the dilemma of whether to stick by their principles or by their jobs.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland, I pay tribute to the 14 who refused to sign. They are loyal citizens, as loyal as anyone in the House or outside. They have only the interests of the country at heart. All were extremely skilled in their job. Some were experts and recognised as such. One was an expert in the Chinese language and, from 1984, played a leading role in the campaign for the lifting of the ban.
Some countries have remained under dictatorship, but others have not. In the former communist regimes, there were people like Dr. Sakharov, who reached a point where he could no longer serve the regime because he knew that it was unjust. I may be wrong—one cannot, of course, be certain about such matters—but had those 14 GCHQ workers lived in the Soviet Union, had they been Russians or Soviets, they would have stood out. The matters of principle and justice would have been similar to those they were facing, although the circumstances were very different there. They could not sign the document and allow themselves to be intimidated, even if it cost them their jobs. That is why we pay tribute to those 14.
Conservatives Members may sneer about such people, but we remember those in the last century, such us the Tolpuddle martyrs, who were persecuted and who stood by their principles. I would guess that in years to come the 14 will be seen in the same light. Certainly, I hope that they will live long enough to see their campaign succeed. Indeed, I hope that it will be only two or three years before that happens. A Labour Government will lift the ban.
My right and learned hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition reaffirmed Labour's commitment and made our position clear on the 10th anniversary of the ban when he spoke at Cheltenham. He said that one of the first actions of a Labour Government would be to lift that ban. I have not the slightest doubt that that pledge will be kept. [Interruption.] I thought that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) wanted to intervene, but he does not wish to do so.
When the ban was announced Ministers may have felt that there would be some commotion in the House and at GCHQ—and in the trade union movement—but that it would die down within two or three years. It has not died down, however. On the 10th anniversary of the ban there was the demonstration at Cheltenham. I note that the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) is either nodding or shaking his head—I am not sure which.
One thing is certain: no one can claim that the issue has gone away. It will not go away until victory has been secured. The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) tried to play down the position of the International Labour Organisation. He tried to give the impression that this was not a matter of great significance. But that is not the view of the ILO, which has clearly said that the British Government seem to be in breach of convention 87.
Time and again in the past 10 years there have been attempts in the ILO to avoid coming to a conclusion on this matter, in the hope that an agreement can be reached between the British Government and the trade unions. Indeed, a meeting took place last December. The unions went to the meeting at Downing street in the hope of reaching an agreement. They were flexible; they were willing to negotiate an agreement that would involve no striking at GCHQ. Even if Conservative Members are right to say that a ban was necessary because of the risk of industrial action—I do not accept that—the unions were saying that they were willing to reach an agreement on union recognition with no industrial action to be taken at GCHQ.
The Government seem to have said that this is not good enough. The Government, I understand, insisted that when unions sign such agreements they must also agree to ban industrial action everywhere by their members. No union could possibly agree to those terms; they would be a denial of basic democratic and union rights.
The Government were clearly not willing to come to an agreement, therefore. The only reason why the Secretary of State for Employment—and previous Secretaries of State —has given the impression that there could ever be an agreement is to prevent the ILO reaching a conclusion on convention 87.

Mr. Edward Garnier: It would help me if the hon. Gentleman would tell us whether he thinks that the industrial action taken in 1979 was justified. I am not sure of his stance on that.

Mr. Winnick: It is not for me to pass judgment on whether industrial action is right or wrong. Neither I nor other hon. Members are asked for their opinions on such matters. It is not my job to pass judgment. If the hon. Gentleman is genuinely concerned about industrial action at GCHQ, and not just using it as an excuse for a continued ban, the remedy is clear—the unions have offered the sort of agreement that I have described.

Mr. Garnier: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can see the distinction between the principle that he supports and the question that I have asked him. Does he believe that the industrial action, taken in 1979 before there was any question of a ban, was justified or not? I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has in his time supported a number of cases of industrial action, such as the miners' strike, and has claimed that they were justified or otherwise. I am asking for a simple answer, to see how it informs the principle.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): That was an excessively long intervention.

Mr. Winnick: I will not take lectures from Conservative Members who have never defended trade union rights and who, moreover, sometimes refuse to recognise trade unions in the companies that they run. A Government Whip, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown), sometimes known as "the heavy", was quoted in my local newspaper—his constituency and mine are not far apart—as having said that he would rather see his factory closed down than recognise trade unions. We need no lectures about trade unions from Conservative Members.

Mr. Rogers: I know that my hon. Friend would not want to pass judgment on anyone taking industrial action. As he has said, it is not his business to do so. I am sure, however, that he would want to tell the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) that the action took place as a result of the arbitrary suspension of the pay scheme that was in operation for civil servants. The Government say that the number of man days lost was 10,000. In fact, with 7,000 people working at the establishment, it was just over one. In addition, as only 10 per cent. of GCHQ's business is data collection, there was virtually no loss of any material.

Mr. Winnick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. People can rest assured that the industrial action was not taken in jest. Trade unions do not take such action in jest. In this case they had good reason to take the action that they took, as has been explained by my hon. Friend.
I want to talk about what happened after the industrial action.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does not the hon. Gentleman recall that on 14 April 1981 the then Secretary of State for Defence asserted that the dispute had not affected operational efficiency or capability in any area?

Mr. Winnick: The hon. and learned Gentleman is right. This remark has been quoted previously. The fact is that work at GCHQ continued despite the industrial action. The real test is what happened in 1982, the year after the action. I refer to the Falklands war. Of course, that conflict could have been avoided if the Government had not sent to the junta political signals giving the impression that the Falklands were not important to Britain. At the time of the war— a year after the industrial action— GCHQ fulfilled its duties. Hon. Members do not have to take just my word—

Mr. Garnier: rose—

Mr. Winnick: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. No doubt he will make his own remarks in due course.
When the Falklands war had ended, Sir Brian Tovey, the then director of GCHQ, sent a message to every employee. This occurred a year after the industrial action which, we are told, caused such disruption that GCHQ could not carry out its duties and which, it is asserted, made necessary the ban that occurred three years after the action. Sir Brian Tovey's message said:
High level praise. There can be no doubt that this praise has been well deserved. It has been earned by hard and dedicated work by you as individuals.
The great majority of those individuals were trade unionists. A year after the industrial action no Conservative Member—not even the Minister—would have had the effrontery to suggest that the excellent work done by GCHQ during the war was in any way undermined or hampered by trade union membership. No Minister could say anything of the kind and be telling the truth.

Mr. Garnier: The hon. Gentleman has been most courteous in giving way to me, and I shall not interrupt him again. Before leaving the Chamber to attend a meeting of the Select Committee on Home Affairs I invite him to tell us whether he interprets the intervention of his hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) as amounting to justification of the strike that took place in 1979?

Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman seems to be obsessed with industrial action. I doubt whether, in his entire life, he has supported any action by trade unions in defence of their members' jobs. My hon. Friend gave the reason for the action. It is not for me, as a Labour Member of Parliament, to pass judgment, and I do not intend to do so.
If, as I hope, the International Labour Organisation comes to the conclusion that the British Government are in breach of convention 87 it should be noted that no other democracy has been so reprimanded. This would be the first time for any democratic country to be found to be in breach of convention 87. What sort of regimes have been reprimanded for breaches of convention 87? They include El Salvador, Brazil and other dictatorial and tyrannical countries. It will not improve Britain's reputation to be linked to such regimes if the ILO concludes that we have breached that convention.

I began by saying that a fundamental right is at issue. What divides the two sides of the House is whether people have the right to belong to a trade union. I believe that, in a democracy, people at their place of employment have such a right. Ten years ago, that right was taken away without any justification. I am clear in my mind that the continuing campaign, together with what we are saying today, is fully justified. Of course, the Minister will not budge today. In Committee, there was not even the slightest sign that the Government would budge.
Following a meeting at Downing street last December, the general secretary of the TUC wrote to the ILO explaining what was happening and asking it to proceed accordingly. I hope that it will do so. Unfortunately, our new clause will be lost today, but in the end victory will be ours. No matter how many defeats we suffer now, the time will shortly come—perhaps in two or three years—when there will be another Government who will respect human rights and one of whose first actions will be to ensure that the right that was taken away 10 years ago is restored as quickly as possible.

Sir Peter Emery: I had not intended to speak, but there appears to be an accusation that Conservative Members are against trade unions and I do not believe that to be true. Indeed, if trade unions did not exist, the Conservative party would have had to invent them. I hold a trade union record that no other hon. Member has ever achieved: I am the only person who, as
a rank-and-file member of a trade union, defeated a member of his own executive to win a seat in this place. I achieved that by defeating Mr. Ian Mikardo in Reading in 1959—so my views about trade unions should not come under any attack.
We need to think seriously about whether it is correct to consider the employees of GCHQ in the same terms as we consider the military. That is the basis of the argument and it is the Government's view that they should be put in the same category. I understand the Opposition's argument that they should be treated separately. One of the dangers of being somewhat independent is that one can often appreciate the arguments on both sides. At this moment, however, the question is which of the arguments is more important to the security of this country.

Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: The right hon. Gentleman, like other hon. Members here today, did not have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee. I want to put to him a question that was put to the Minister in Committee. If membership of a trade union at GCHQ is a threat to our national security, how does the right hon. Gentleman view the current practice of market testing—for example, for the maintenance of RAF strike aircraft, which could mean private companies maintaining the engines? Would the same argument—that membership of a trade union is inimical to the interests of national security—apply to the private companies?

Sir Peter Emery: The straight answer to that is no and I shall therefore press on.
I spoke on Second Reading and, although I was not on the Committee, I followed its debates in Hansard. The Prime Minister's statement of 13 January is of the greatest importance in considering these questions. My right hon. Friend said:

Against that background, however, I indicated that the Government were prepared to enable the Government Communications Staff Federation, the registered trade union for GCHQ staff, to affiliate to the Council of Civil Service Unions, subject to conditions to guarantee its continuing independence. This would have allowed the staff of GCHQ to be represented in discussions between the Government and the unions on matters affecting the civil service generally in a way in which they are not at present."—[Official Report, 13 January 1994; Vol. 235, c. 255.]
Can my hon. Friend the Minister confirm whether that offer remains?

Mr. David Davis: indicated assent.

Sir Peter Emery: I see from his nod that it does, and that is important in the balance of the matter. That is a long way from emotive suggestions to the effect that the 14 people were similar to Mr. Sakharov in Russia. I have been to Gorky and seen what Mr. Sakharov had to go through, and there is no comparison. It is important that the House should not debate important matters with such a division of political views. I believe that there is not an absolute division of political views. I believe honestly that both sides want to see what is best for the defence of the country. I do not doubt that at all, and I would not suggest that those on the Opposition Front Bench wanted otherwise. It seems to me that it comes down to a difference of opinion, and how that difference is best summed up.

Mr. Winnick: Let there be no misunderstanding. I made a comparison with the case of the late Dr. Sakharov, but I accepted when I spoke—at least, I hope I did and I will check my remarks—that the circumstances were very different. I was not attempting to compare like with like. I tried to compare—I believe I was right in doing so—the case of Dr. Sakharov, who, under dictatorship conditions, stood by his principles, with that of the 14 who, in a democracy, were willing to sacrifice their jobs because they, too, believed in basic human rights and in justice. I see some likeness between the two cases.

Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman was clearly not making the sort of suggestions that I thought might have been drawn from his remarks; it is good to have that cleared up.
I return to the question that I put originally: should we treat the employees at GCHQ in the same way as we treat those who are working in the defence and military forces of this country? The Government take the view that we should. I happen to believe—certainly at this moment—that that is the right decision. I urge those who are working at GCHQ to take up the offer made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, which is still open; they could then make specific representations in a normal civil service fashion. I believe that, if that were to happen, the House ought to be satisfied.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones). He is not here this afternoon as he unfortunately had to attend the funeral of a friend, but he will join us later. It is right to pay tribute to his hard work—both as a councillor in Cheltenham and latterly as the Member of Parliament representing that constituency—on behalf of those at


GCHQ who lost their jobs as a result of the struggle for trade union membership, one of whom is now a Liberal Democrat councillor on the local district council.
John Cook was a communications and cipher operator at GCHQ and is, perhaps, a good talisman for what has occurred there and for what ought to occur in the future. He is one of the 14, and he could hardly be criticised for any suggestion of disloyalty to his country. John Cook was positively vetted and, despite the dispute over trade union membership, has remained loyal to his oath of secrecy, as have all the 14. His loyalty goes without question, as does that of the other 13.
John Cook was a communications and cipher operator on Ascension island during the Falklands war. He worked hard in difficult conditions and with extreme effect, so one understands, while he was there. His loyalty was judged afterwards when he was invited to Buckingham palace to be honoured for his work, yet he is one of the 14 people who lost their jobs because it was thought to be against the national interest that they should be allowed to be members of a trade union.
What Mr. Cook and his colleagues proposed was not some outrageous new theory. They were not claiming some new right. They were not relying on some newly ratified convention from which the Government might have wished to derogate when it was created. Mr. Cook was relying on an established right which he had exercised fairly throughout his period at GCHQ.
Yes, there was an industrial dispute at GCHQ, but it was a lawful one. I do not think that it has ever been suggested that there was any suspicion of illegality about the dispute or the way in which it was conducted. All lawful trade disputes militate against someone's interest. That is in the nature of trade disputes, but they remain lawful in Britain, and rightly so, within certain limits.
Successive Governments had plenty of time to react to the dispute and to say that it redounded in a way which was contrary to the national interest and should be the direct cause of removing the right to trade union membership. However, that did not happen. It was about five years later that the Government decided to abolish—

Mr. Rogers: Three years later.

Mr. Carlile: I am sorry, three years later. It was about three years later that the Government decided to abolish trade union membership at GCHQ. That could hardly be described as a reaction. It seems to me that, in this instance, the Government are simply tilting at windmills—but they are invisible windmills. It is not sufficient to argue that they suddenly discovered that GCHQ should be treated in the same way as the military—with great respect to the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). For years —indeed, throughout most of the right hon. Gentleman's distinguished and long membership of the House—the GCHQ work force were members of trade unions without ill effect.

Sir Peter Emery: I do not mean to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman's flow, but there is a difference between the time before 10,000 hours of work were lost at GCHQ and the time after it. Until that moment, trade union membership was never questioned but after that moment questions were raised. That was the watershed.

Mr. Carlile: I do not understand that point. If one analyses the time lost in the context of the whole work force of GCHQ, a very small number—a handful—of man years were lost. And it was always a lawful trade dispute.

Dr. John Cunningham: I want to help and support the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman makes. In the period to which the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) referred, almost 5 million working days were lost at GCHQ. Only 0.2 per cent. of them were lost during the dispute. Far more time was lost because people were absent ill and certainly because at weekends they were not there at all.

Mr. Carlile: The right hon. Gentleman makes his point well. He underlines my point that what occurred was a perfectly normal lawful trade dispute. Nor should we forget that the Intelligence Services Bill deals with the position as it is in 1994. Much has changed in the trade union world since 1978. I suspect that even the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) would admit that to be true, albeit reluctantly. I see that he shrugs his shoulders at that proposition.

Dr. John Cunningham: I am trying not to be drawn into it.

Mr. Carlile: The fact is that much has changed. We are considering the position in 1994. There have been the highest level negotiations between those who wish to be trade unionists at GCHQ, the trade unions and the Government. Undertakings have been given—I have not heard the Minister suggest that they were dishonourably given—that GCHQ would be able to function securely, as it always has in the past, and that there would not be disruption at GCHQ through industrial action. I do not know what more the Government can ask. I really do not know at what windmill the Government are tilting. What are they afraid of?
We have heard two cogent speeches from Conservative Back-Bench Members, but neither of them identified a single item that could cause the Government even so much as concern if trade union membership were permitted at GCHQ.
The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) may be right. There may be no technical breach of the International Labour Organisation conventions, but that has not yet been determined, nor is it the issue. The issue is the principle whether it is right that workpeople who were more loyal to this country than most workpeople are ever asked to be should have been removed from their job, their rights and their livelihood because the Government did not like the notion of having trade unions at GCHQ.

Mr. Rogers: With all due respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, the workers who participated in industrial action at GCHQ were not disloyal in any way. It is important to emphasise that national security was never put at risk and that at GCHQ—this is one of the things that are not always obvious, certainly to Conservative Members, who never even try to find out—only 10 per cent. of the work force is involved in data collection. When the industrial action took place, none of the members involved in strategic data collection went on strike. The fundamental process of GCHQ continued right through that one-day industrial action.

Mr. Carlile: I have made the point twice that none of the workers at GCHQ was disloyal. Indeed, I think that I am right in saying that it has never been claimed that a single worker at GCHQ was disloyal. [Interruption.] The Government have never claimed with an iota of evidence to show any disloyalty or any effect of any alleged disloyalty.
I would find the arguments of the hon. Member for Monmouth more convincing if there were some evidence of a single incident of disloyalty that affected the interests of this country in any significant way. Perhaps I can best close my remarks by referring to the words of the then Secretary of State for Defence, now Sir John Nott. One notes that he has not been given the ermine shawl—perhaps because he has been a little too frank in expressing his views about the performance of the Government of which he was a member. He said that the dispute at GCHQ had not
in any way affected operational capability in any area."— [Official Report, 14 April 1981; Vol. 3, c. 136.]
If that was true—

Mr. French: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Carlile: No. I have almost finished. If Mr. Nott was stating the facts accurately to the House, why are the Government spending so much time raking over the coals of a lawful industrial dispute that took place about 15 years ago?

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Trade union rights at GCHQ have been a major cause celebre which has rattled down the 10 years since the withdrawal of trade union recognition. The issue has dominated debates on the Bill in both Chambers of the Palace of Westminster and new clause 1 shows the Opposition's strength of feeling here as well as in another place.
I understand the grievance that informs the argument. Clearly if any one of us had joined a trade union in the knowledge that membership was acceptable, it would seem to be part of an acquired right, we would think nothing of it and would therefore feel aggrieved if the right were withdrawn. I understand and respect that feeling of grievance, but I must refer to the basic principle.
The House understands that I have also run up against the Government, but they are accountable to an electorate and their perception of the defence of the nation gives them the right to make arrangements for those whom they employ. I am mindful of that right because when I read the Committee Hansard reports I could not see a distinction as regards national security. Hon. Members across the Chamber rightly accept that GCHQ is an integral part of our national defence or early warning system. It has been argued that it is crucial and that the information that it delivers is important to the nation. We say the same of our armed forces and accept that it is intolerable that they should strike, even for one day, and that it might hinder our capability—not last time, but it might next time. Governments must look forward as well as refer back.

Dr. John Cunningham: I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not understand his argument. He says that Governments are entitled to take such decisions. The same Government have a Joint Intelligence Committee, which handles the most precious secrets of the nation. Its members are members of a trade union. I guess

that they belong to the First Division Association, which is affiliated to the Trades Union Congress. Their membership conflicts with the hon. Gentleman's argument.

Mr. Shepherd: That is why I approached the subject fairly diffidently. Until 1984, the same judgment applied to GCHQ. I understand the matter of principle that the Opposition have identified, which dominated the thrust of the attack on the Bill—attack is probably the wrong word. However, when the Government identify what they believe to be the essential interest for defence, although the right hon. Gentleman and I might disagree with the particular, the Government have a right to act. They must justify their actions to the Chamber and to the country.
I must contradict the new clause. I recognise that, where national security or organisations such as the Army are concerned—as the right hon. Gentleman said, there is a seeming contradiction—and the Government cites that, for example, GCHQ should not have the benefit of trade unions, but should work through staff organisations, that is a right of Government.
The Opposition are right to challenge the decision if they feel strongly about it. They have made it clear that if they form a Government they will restore the right. That is a respectable argument. I am saying that both arguments are respectable. However, the judgment falls to the Government and I will back them on it because I think that it is acceptable. It is the Government's perception that, although 10,000 hours lost in one day is not significant, they cannot be in that position again and they have made arrangements to that effect.

Mr. Winnick: If we do not carry the hon. Gentleman with us on the issue of civil liberties, we can reasonably assume that no other Conservative Member will vote with us in the Lobby. Does the hon. Gentleman accept, however, that the Government should give strong and compelling reasons for taking away a basic right?
All those employees were highly praised for their role in the Falklands campaign in 1982 and, furthermore, no one has argued that their capabilities were not at full strength during the cold war when they were trade union members. For the hon. Gentleman to prove his case he would have to say that the Government argued that GCHQ's capabilities had been undermined, but no such argument has been put forward.

Mr. Shepherd: I guess that I implicitly accepted that point. The resurrection of details of GCHQ's history obviously informs our views on the subject. I accept that the Opposition take an entirely different standpoint. I reiterate that the Opposition Front-Bench team have stated that, when they have the opportunity of being in government, they will restore the right.
I am merely arguing that, as a matter of principle, each Government responsible for national security must make decisions and judgments about it. The strike might not have had consequences for national security at the time, but we must all look forward and decide how we would meet such a contingency in the future. The trade union's offer of a no-strike bargain was a subsequent undertaking.
The Government made a judgment in 1984 and it is no secret that I was not happy with it. I may have taken a different judgment, but that is not the point. The nation commissions the Government to look after our national security and accepts that GCHQ is an integral part of it. The Government can therefore argue, and feel strongly


justified in doing so, that it is part of the country's defence forces and as such should be inhibited from forming unions and striking.

Mr. Rogers: I cannot follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. Is he saying that the Government have the right to override the international conventions and treaties that they have subscribed to? If he is saying that they can do so willy-nilly, it is a pretty awful state of affairs. The Government have subscribed to conventions laid down by the International Labour Organisation, which is an arm of the United Nations. We cannot subscribe to an international treaty that acknowledges that people have a right to join an organisation of their choosing and then decide to override it. If that is the case, why do not the Government withdraw from those international agreements? After all, the ILO was set up to safeguard workers' rights. It was originally thought that it would be necessary only in third-world countries, but that is just about the level that we are getting to in this country under this Government.

Mr. Shepherd: I am trying to illustrate the distinction of principle. I notice that the Opposition do not suggest for one moment that when they come into office they will allow the armed forces to have the right to join a trade union.

Mr. Kilfoyle: The hon. Gentleman is telling the House that he is trying to make a distinction of principle. May I ask him the question that I asked the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery)? Is he saying that he regards members of GCHQ as members of the military establishment and in a separate category in terms of national security and membership of trade unions? How does he square that view with the fact that employees of a private firm who might be maintaining aircraft engines —I gave the example of bomber command—might be union members? Is it not contradictory to say, as the right hon. Member said, that they can belong to a union when employees at GCHQ cannot because their membership somehow affects our national security? Does not the hon. Gentleman see the inconsistency in his argument?

Mr. Shepherd: Yes, but life is full of inconsistencies. That is not meant to be a glib response. The Government directly employ a huge establishment at GCHQ who are dedicated, as hon. Members on both sides of the House accept, to the defence of our nation. I attended the Standing Committee and carefully read the reports. I know that that is accepted and common ground.
I am merely saying that there is a distinction of principle and that the Government adopted a reasonable position. I am not saying that it is unreasonable for the Labour party, which was founded by the trade union movement, to stand staunchly by the right of those 13 GCHQ employees. That is perfectly honourable. I understand why a future Government might take an alternative or a contrary view. That is the distinction that I am acknowledging. I do not think that it is the major issue in the Intelligence Services Bill; that is the essence of my remarks.

Mr. Rogers: Will the hon. Gentleman then follow the logic of his argument and ask the Government to ban trade unions in atomic weapons establishments, for instance? Due to the contractorisation of atomic weapons establishments to private companies, civil servants are involved only in monitoring certain situations and the

general work force are now not Government servants. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Government could, in the interests of national security, ban trade unions in that industry?

5 pm

Mr. Shepherd: We are going round in a circle. I am saying that the Government of the day—whether Labour or Conservative—have a right to determine which matters affect directly the national security of the nation and they stand accountable to the electorate and to the House. That Governments may have different views about different organisations at different times is wholly appropriate and consistent with the argument that I am mounting.
However, I find it slightly curious that this is the dominating debate about the Intelligence Services Bill which is linked to the security services legislation. I accept that it is a major cause celebre, but it is not the essence of the debate about the Bill.

Mr. Kilfoyle: Is not the whole purpose of the intelligence service to protect the very liberties which are being undermined in the case of those people who, under an international convention, have an established right to belong to a trade union at Government communications headquarters? What is the point of having an intelligence service if those liberties are not protected in this of all places?

Mr. Shepherd: That is a powerful argument and I treat it with respect. That is why I think that the remit is very important. That is why I think that national security, in definition, is very important and why I think that the Committee of parliamentarians and its remit is important. That is why I think that the tribunal is important. I have lots of views about the Bill, but I do not see this as the crucial issue in it.
I understand the passion that is expressed about the matter. I think that it is legitimate and fair. But I also think that the counter view is legitimate and fair. If Opposition Members wish, they may implement recognition of trade unions at GCHQ when they come to government. I think that I have made my point in my small contribution to the debate.

Mr. Stuart Randall: I am one of those who believe that we must always maintain the security of our nation. We debated the main security services—the intelligence service, Government communications headquarters and the military—during the Second Reading of the Bill. We have to make sure that they work well.
When I was 15 years old I joined the shipyard at Devonport and I have been a member of a trade union ever since. Frankly, I cannot understand what Conservative Members are going on about. I cannot see any conflict whatsoever regarding national security and membership of trade unions. I say to the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) that I do not think that we can bridge the gap between us on this issue.
The Government must take action to resolve the problem with the rights of staff at GCHQ. They should be able to become members of a union of their choice which can be regarded as being an Independent union. They are the key points of convention 87: the ability to choose which union to join and the recognition of a union as being independent.
The Government could be censured by the International Labour Organisation. The ILO is scheduled to meet again in the autumn and I would be ashamed if it were to censure this country. The censure could take the form of awarding a "special paragraph". That is very serious as it is the ILO's highest form of censure. In practice, it would mean that Britain would be seen to be in breach of an ILO convention—in this case, convention 87, which deals with the rights of individuals to be members of trade unions of their choice. The ILO is an international organisation of great repute and, in my view, it would be very damaging to Britain's interests if we were seen to disregard or belittle in any way the rulings or advocacy of that organisation.
The awarding of a special paragraph is used very rarely by the ILO. Therefore, when it is used we can assume that the ILO views the breaching of the convention very seriously. In the past, special paragraphs have been issued over such violations as slavery in the Sudan, forced labour in Brazil and the murder of trade unionists in El Salvador. If the ILO censures us in that way, Britain will be seen as ignoring human rights. Additionally, it will be seen as flouting an important international convention to which it is a signatory.
What therefore is the current position? A censure in the form of the special paragraph was proposed by the ILO in 1992, but it was withdrawn when the Government declared their intention to reach a solution that was satisfactory to all parties. They said that they hoped for
a substantive, frank and constructive dialogue carried out in good faith.
The Government agreed to undertake such dialogue following the statement in 1992 by an important ILO committee. It said three things: first, the committee was unanimous about the need for a renewal of dialogue between the Government and trade unions; secondly, it deplored the fact that it was unable to note any tangible progress on the question of the breach of convention 87, or even a resumption of discussions; and, thirdly, it urged the Government to resume in the very near future
constructive discussions calculated to lead, through genuine dialogue, to a compromise acceptable to both sides.
The Government have agreed to create such a compromise. But what are they doing now? In 1992 they said that they would take action to resolve the problem—they are committed to doing that. In January, in a parliamentary answer, the Prime Minister said that the overriding concern was the maintenance of the continuing operation of GCHQ —we all agree with that—in order to protect national security.
However, there is no evidence that the industrial action taken between 1979 and 1981 damaged national security. We have already heard the quotes from Sir John Nott, so I will not repeat them. But, essentially, no operational activity was affected in any area during the dispute. I estimate that about 15 people per year did not work during the period. If one calculates that there are 300 working days a year, only a tiny number of people were involved in industrial action.
In this context, the Prime Minister said that the Government Communications Staff Federation—the registered union. for GCHQ staff—should become affiliated with the Council of Civil Service Unions. The right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) also referred to that suggestion in his speech. It was rejected by the trade

unions for one key reason—it was absolutely irrelevant because, even if it were regarded as a solution, convention 87 would still be violated. There was no way in which the trade unions could accept that offer. The Prime Minister went on to say that there were no plans at that time to hold further meetings.
What the Government are doing—seemingly via the office of the Lord Chancellor—is creating all sorts of legal arguments. They are wriggling by saying that convention 87 cannot be applied directly to the GCHQ case and that it is necessary to consider the words of convention 152. It is clear that they are raking in all sorts of legal arguments. I do not believe that such arguing and that kind of court stuff will enhance the esteem of Britain.
I shall ask the Minister three questions. First, do the Government fully support the principles laid down in convention 87? It is rumoured that the Government might even withdraw from the ILO. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can confirm whether that is true. Does he agree that people should be free to choose to which union they want to belong and that those unions can be independent? I should like to know the Government's thinking on that.
Secondly, will the Minister tell the House exactly under what circumstances the Government could allow staff at GCHQ to join independent unions of their choice? I am sure that the House will wait to hear the Minister's replies because we need some help from the Government to see if we can break the logjam.
Thirdly, I hope that the Minister will admit that progress is slow. Is it the Government's intention to put forward some proposals to form the basis for constructive dialogue?
I should like the answers to those three simple little questions, because I am one of those people who genuinely believes that the argument about trade union membership was a political mistake created a number of years ago. It has nothing to do with national security and it is completely fallacious to rake in such an argument. What we are talking about has nothing to do with the security services; we are talking about basic individual rights. For that reason I support the new clause.
I see no conflict between trade union membership and national security. I have seen no evidence and heard nothing today to suggest that being a member of a trade union affects national security. That is a load of old rubbish. The mistake was made by Lord Howe, who was probably being pushed at the time by a certain lady. The Government now cannot dig themselves out of the great hole into which they have got themselves.
One thing is clear: the ILO will consider the matter again this autumn and it will be up for consideration at next year's conference. We therefore have a year in which to sort the whole thing out. I ask the Government to get stuck in, have some discussions and come up with a sensible solution to the problem. We can then put it to bed once and for all.
Will the Minister please answer my three questions?

Mr. French: There is a striking contrast between the posture adopted by the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr Cunningham), who opened the debate—it was reinforced by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall)—and the views held by the current employees at GCHQ. Many of them are my constituents;


they live in Gloucester and work at GCHQ in Cheltenham. Very few of those employees have any complaints about the prevailing situation at GCHQ.
The attitude of the Labour party, and, to an extent, that of the Liberal party, is yet another example of an attempt to whip up this issue into a major problem, some years after it has ceased to be a major problem locally. That was well illustrated by the recent demonstration on the 10th anniversary of the trade union ban. Several Opposition Members have referred to that demonstration and any of them who witnessed it would have noticed two things. First, the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), was at its head and spoke to the assembled multitude. Secondly, if those witnesses had looked more carefully, however, they would have noted that the number of local people and, particularly, the number of local employees of GCHQ who attended the demonstration was very small.
5.15 pm
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) will no doubt repeat the point that he made in Committee that those employees were not at the demonstration because, as they are not permitted to be members of a trade union, they should not have been there. I cannot see that membership of a trade union would or should have prevented them from expressing their views by taking part in that demonstration. I must emphasise, however, that the majority of people who attended that demonstration were drafted in from other parts of the country. Some were drafted in at the behest of certain members of the Labour party, who wished to give the impression and convey a national message that GCHQ is still a matter of great concern locally and, therefore, nationally. That was a false message, because it did not represent local views accurately.

Mr. Rogers: May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that, if he quotes what I said in Committee, he should make use of the relevant column in the Official Report? I do not recall saying what he claimed I said in Committee.

Mr. French: I regret that I do not have the precise column reference to hand, but if I can find it before the end of the debate, I will quote it to the hon. Gentleman.
The right hon. Member for Copeland should understand that approximately half of the current employees at GCHQ joined it some time after the ban had come into effect. They joined in the full knowledge of the conditions of service to which they had to agree. Those people are not complaining, because they joined in the full knowledge that they would be unable to join a trade union. That ban has not prevented them from taking up their employment. That fact, too, reveals that there is a yawning gap between views held locally and those expressed by the Opposition today and in Committee. The Opposion are trying to foist their views on the House and the nation.

Mr. Rogers: For the purpose of the exercise, I accept the argument that the hon. Gentleman has put forward—the wishes of the employees at GCHQ should be paramount. In that case, why would he object to a ballot being held there on whether employees wanted to join a trade union? That could be held according to the law that the Government have prescribed. Why not allow the workers at GCHQ the right to a ballot under the rules and regulations drawn up by the Government?

Mr. French: As the hon. Gentleman knows, those employees are eligible to join the staff federation, which I shall discuss later. I am arguing that the views of those people, as represented by the Labour party, purporting to express views held locally, are being grossly and seriously distorted. From local knowledge and from constant contact with employees at GCHQ in a local context, I am confident that my argument is sound.
Several Opposition Members have ridiculed Conservative Members for, they claim, holding the view that trade unions at GCHQ would constitute a threat to security. It very much depends on what one understands by a threat to security. It is not a threat to security in the sense that Conservative Members are speaking about something equivalent to reds under the bed. Anyone who understands the procedures in GCHQ will realise that there is a possibility of a threat to national security.

Mr. Kilfoyle: rose—

Mr. John McWilliam: rose

Mr. French: Before I am interrupted, perhaps I could be allowed to explain why and how I can substantiate that remark. Then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman—to both hon. Gentlemen, if necessary.
We have heard comments by the Opposition that there never has been any interruption to the data collection. The data collection is a vital part of what GCHQ does, although it performs many other services. The continuity and non-interruption of that data collection is vital. If one is involved, as people are in GCHQ, in gathering a continuous collection of information, which, having been gathered, is subject to code-breaking and interpretation, it becomes clear that an interruption of any type in that data collection can completely destroy the capacity to interpret the rest of the information that is collected.
If I may give a simple illustration, if data has been collected continuously for seven days but there is then an interruption for as much as seven minutes, that can render the interpretation of the seven days' data difficult, if not impossible or invalid.

Mr. Kilfoyle: If it is so important to maintain the continuity of the collection and interpretation of data, why was one of the people who were dismissed so summarily as a result of the attitude of the Government towards trade unions at GCHQ the only Chinese technical expert available to GCHQ, and why, subsequently, was the body of expertise that had been built up around that individual allowed to be dissipated? The department was closed. If it was so important to maintain that data, why did the Government act so vindictively?

Mr. French: I am speaking about the continuity of collection of data. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has fully understood that. I am fairly sure that the task of the gentleman to whom he refers was interpreting data, not collecting it. That is all the difference in the world. Even the best interpreter of data cannot interpret correctly if the collection is not complete.

Mr. McWilliam: May I tell the hon. Gentleman, as a sponsored member of the National Communications Union, and someone who has worked on national security and defence communications over the years and has never broken the Official Secrets Act 1911, first, that I do not


know where he gets the basis for the statements that he has just made. Secondly, there has been no break in the continuity of data at GCHQ during the strike.
Thirdly, people such as me who have worked in national security and defence communications for all these years who are active trade unionists find the attitude of the Government of the previous right hon. Member for Finchley, now Baroness Thatcher, and others towards trade unionists deeply and personally objectionable. The only traitors that we have had, and the ones that have been prosecuted, are not trade unionists, active trade unionists, socialists or members of the Labour party. They have been members of the classes represented by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.

Mr. French: I am not sure that the concluding remarks by the hon. Gentleman have a correct place in the debate.
Several Opposition Members—the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) has added to that—have argued that there has been no breakdown in the collection of data. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) pointed out earlier that the fact that no harm had been done as a result of any—

Mr. Thomas Graham: rose—

Mr. French: May I just finish my argument?
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery pointed out to us that no harm had allegedly been done as a result of any interruption, and a reference was made to the remarks allegedly made by the then Defence Secretary, Sir John Nott, quoted recently in debate. The argument that Sir John Nott made at the time was not that there had been no damage done as a result. It was made clear in Committee and made clear by the then Prime Minister, commenting on Sir John Nott's remarks, that he
was referring only to military operations
and
GCHQ did not come under his then Department and does not now."—[Official Report, 31 January 1984; Vol. 53, c. 136.]
Therefore, the comments of Sir John Nott do not support the argument that no damage was done at the time.

Mr. Graham: rose—

Mr. Rogers: rose—

Mr. French: No; I would like to proceed. I have given way a great deal.

Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman said that he would give way.

Mr. French: Yes, but I am coming now to another point that the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) has intervened a great many times and, if the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) is not giving way, he must respect that.

Mr. French: I have given way to a large number of Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Rhondda and I want to answer an argument that he made earlier before giving way to yet a further intervention from him.
The hon. Member for Rhondda and other Opposition Members referred to the fact that, if 10,000 days were lost and there are 6,500 employees, that amounts to only 1½ days per employee. They seem to pray in aid, as an argument, that that is not serious and could not have done very much damage. Continuing my argument about the interruption of data, the loss of 1½ days by one employee is a lot. It is not a little, as the Opposition Members seemed to argue.

Mr. Rogers: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. French: No.
It is a large, serious interruption, and to interpret it as 1½ days instead of the 10,000 days that it was gives a misleading picture.

Mrs. Bridget Prentice: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way on the point about days. I wonder whether he would tell the House whether 1½ days lost as a result of strike action is better or worse than 1½ weeks lost as a result of illness.

Mr. French: The fundamental difference is that proper cover can be given when 1½ weeks are lost as a result of illness, to ensure the continuation of the collection of data, for the simple reason that a large proportion of the work force is not ill simultaneously. Those 10,000 lost days represented a significant number of employees—not all, but a significant number—not working at the same time. That is what makes it potentially very damaging.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery is not present, but no doubt he is ably represented by the hon. Lady. He said that it must be accepted that all lawful trade disputes militated against someone's interests. This is why the comparison made earlier between GCHQ employees and members of the military is so important. If we indeed accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposition—as his party seems to—the "someone" referred to is, in this instance, the nation's security. That places his argument on a different level from some of the other arguments that may be advanced in an understandable attempt to justify legitimate trade union action.
5.30 pm
I said earlier that I wished to deal with the question of the staff federation, whose role has been significantly underestimated in the debate so far. It has been in existence for nearly 10 years, having been established in 1985; in 1988, it was granted sole recognition in regard to the representation of staff. All the local evidence suggests that it represents their interests very satisfactorily.

Mr. Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. French: No; I want to continue with what I am saying.
The federation is, after all, completely democratic. Its officers and members of the general executive council are elected by secret ballot, and it is a representative organisation. Since 1985 it has been listed as a trade union, with the certification officer, under the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974. It operates independently, and is elected independently; it fulfils the task that it was set up to fulfil—the representation of employees. The only requirement involved is that it must not be affiliated to a political organisation, and there is nothing so unreasonable


about that stipulation. Those who do not agree with it must present an argument against it, and there is no sound argument to that effect.

Mr. Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. French: No. I am now making my final point, and I have already given way a great deal.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members seem to be forgetting some of the courtesies of the House. When it is clear that an hon. Member is not going to give way, there is no point in other hon. Members' continually shouting "Will the hon. Gentleman give way?" across the Chamber. On this occasion, the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) is clearly not going to give way.

Mr. Martin Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If an hon. Member is making statements that need to be clarified, is it not beneficial for him to give way so that another hon. Member can correct them if necessary?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is nothing to do with the Chair. The winding-up speeches provide a facility for hon. Members who wish to challenge any points made by others.

Mr. French: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Let me place on record that I have already given way five or six times, as Hansard will show. I consider that perfectly reasonable, and I do not think that I should be forced to give way further by misconduct on the part of Opposition Members.
My final point relates to comments made by the right hon. Member for Copeland and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall). Both were extremely dismissive about the Prime Minister's efforts. It is obvious from all the available information that the Prime Minister has made strenuous attempts to reach an accommodation with those who want full trade union representation, and that he has done so for a long time.
First, Sir Robin Butler was authorised to hold discussions to try to find a way out of the problem. A good many discussions were held with national unions in the attempt to find a formula; they began in 1992, and continued in 1993. Meetings were held with the general secretaries of a number of national unions, and various possibilities were considered. The main issue remained the same, however: the national unions' desire for the right to recruit at GCHQ could not be reconciled with the Prime Minister's understandable view that the overriding desire should be for the continuity of data collection. I very much hope that Opposition Members will come to appreciate—given all the available facts—that that is essential to national security.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I have a good deal in common with the views of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). My wartime experience of contacts with the intelligence services persuaded me that there were wide variations in both the scope and the status of the different sectors, but, like nearly every other hon. Member who is present, I am constrained in what I can say, publicly.
In present-day Northern Ireland, an increasing number of the functions of the armed forces and the police are being civilianised or privatised. The right hon. Member for

Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) mentioned civilians employed in sensitive posts in Whitehall. Very few such civilians, either in Whitehall or on our island, have betrayed their trust as servants of the Crown; I believe that the vast majority of trade unionists are loyal to the Crown, and to their country.
Indeed, that is not in dispute. This is not a question of loyalty; it is not really a question of security in the broader sense, that people cannot be trusted. The problem for my party is the fact that the continuity and smooth working of the establishment at GCHQ are essential.
It has been said that hours lost through sickness vastly outnumbered those lost through industrial action; but, as has also been said, that is not the point. Even a flu epidemic would not immobilise GCHQ at one fell swoop. Admittedly there might be some reduction in efficiency, a backlog in decoding and a delay in the provision of transcriptions; but there would not be a complete closedown.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)—who sometimes agrees with me—assured us that the 10,000 staff days lost during the strike between 1979 and 1981 did not fatally damage operations: he provided written evidence whose validity I accept. The potential for damage remains, however. Presumably a complete closure was avoided in 1981 by the existence of—I hesitate to use the term—strike breakers: not every member of staff joined in. We must ask, however, whether we can be certain that such disunity within the unions will not be repeated.
I accept the Opposition's assurances that industrial action is a thing of the distant past; I think that they honestly believe that. None the less, I have a niggling reservation. Whatever the cause of the 1981 stoppage—we have not been greatly enlightened about that cause today; there is some mystery about it—some such cause could surface again, with the best will in the world. Next time there could be a complete stoppage. I accept what the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) said, and we all know that an effective stoppage, for even a few hours, could do serious damage which it would be impossible to retrieve.

Mr. Rogers: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and it is the reason that I was trying to intervene on the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French).
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that the official Opposition are also concerned about the continuity of collection of sensitive material. The collection of material is carried out electronically; it is not necessary for someone to be present for material to be collected. At the weekend, for example, the number of staff present is very much diminished. Only 10 per cent. of the work force are involved in data collection, so the idea that the collection of material ceases if someone is away is entirely false.

Mr. Molyneaux: I hope that, in view of the rumoured cuts, the hon. Gentleman is not accidentally going to incite the Treasury to tell us that a much smaller work force would be acceptable at GCHQ. However, I accept some of what he said. If we need all those employees at GCHQ, it disproves his idea that tape recorders can run of their own accord—because of my limited experience of modern technology, I prefer the old pencil stub.
It has been suggested that new clause 1 could lead to a stoppage in the maintenance of aircraft engines by private


workmen or a stoppage in a Whitehall Department, even at the Ministry of Defence. I accept that it could mean that an aircraft's take-off was delayed for 48 hours, that a payment order from the Paymaster General might be delayed, or that a cheque might not be issued and tenders not collected by the appropriate date, but the continuity that usually applies in those instances is very different from that at GCHQ where it is absolutely essential. Disruption at GCHQ would cause a great blank in the intelligence picture, which could never be filled from any other source.

Mr. Peter Mandelson: I appreciate the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is drawing a distinction between the production of important engines and the work of GCHQ. Is that not precisely why the employee representatives involved offered a no-strike, no-disruption, agreement at GCHQ if their independent union were to be properly recognised again?

Mr. Molyneaux: I am grateful for the civilised way in which the hon. Gentleman asked his question. I should be greatly reassured if I knew what caused the earlier strike, and what guarantee there was that such a strike would not occur again.

Mr. McWilliam: The earlier strike was caused by management's insistence on imposing unacceptable working hours and conditions on employees of GCHQ. The union said that it was not prepared to accept them, so the management imposed them. That was the cause of the strike, so it seems perverse to blame the trade unions.

Mr. Molyneaux: I was careful not to blame the unions, because I have a great deal of respect for them. I expect that my party comprises a greater proportion of trade unionists than any other party represented in the House, so I do not discount the unions' attitude.
It would have been a great help if we had heard the hon. Gentleman's explanation earlier, but it does not entirely remove my worry. I want to be certain that GCHQ will not be put in jeopardy, and that the collection of information will not be interrupted, even for a matter of hours, because of some mysterious cause or even bloody-mindedness on the part of either side in a dispute. It is for that reason, not because I believe that trade unions are disloyal—I hope that I have made that clear—that I must with some reluctance oppose new clause 1.

Mr. Allason: GCHQ understandably dominated the Bill's Second Reading and the Committee stage. New clause 1 goes to the heart of the issue of trade union recognition at GCHQ and, of course, of convention 87 of the International Labour Organisation. However, there are two reasons why the new clause should be opposed.
First, GCHQ is a special case. One must go back not just to its origins as the Government code and cipher school during the second world war but to room 39 of the naval intelligence division during the first world war, when the division achieved disproportionate success in the prosecution of war. I remind the House that, in 1917, it was as a direct result of the decryption of enciphered traffic by room 39 that the Zimmermann telegram brought the

United States into the war. Room 39 then had a considerable impact on the battle of Dogger Bank and, of course, on the battle of Jutland.
Thereafter, there was enormous sensitivity about the interception of communications. The official secrets legislation of 1919 spells it out in black and white that the Government were authorised to intercept cables, telephone calls and other communications, so it was something of a surprise that Mr. Chapman Pincher should have made such a fuss about the D-notice affair with Lord Wilson, who was then Prime Minister.
The Government were perfectly entitled to intercept communications, but there was a great deal of sensitivity about the issue. Of course, the moment that someone becomes aware that his communications are being intercepted, he becomes a great deal more discreet.
The 1924 White Paper was arguably one of the gravest breaches of security that this country has ever faced—a Prime Minister decided to compromise national security by disclosing details of secret communications that had been passing between the Soviet embassy in London and Moscow. They revealed that the trade agreement that had been made was going to be ignored by the Soviet authorities. There was a short-term advantage for the Government in that, but, in the long term, it had the effect of preventing the operation of GCCS. That is why I mention it now.
Much has been said to the effect that new clause 1 will not interfere with the continuity of operations at GCHQ.
That is not the case. It is worth remembering that, in 1938, during the Munich crisis, the Prime Minister's first opportunity to know whether he had achieved any success with Adolf Hitler was when the Deutschland left the Spanish port of Vigo. GCCS was monitoring radio traffic from the Deutschland, a very large German naval vessel.
The question was whether it was going to turn west and south and continue its intended cruise to South America with a crew of trainees, in which case Mr. Chamberlain could be assured that he had achieved what he wanted from Munich and there was not to be immediate war; or whether the Deutschland turned north and east from Vigo, in which case it would be assumed that the Deutschland, returning to port, was crewed by a crack crew of naval seamen, which meant that war was fairly imminent.
That is the kind of crucial undertaking never disclosed at the time, or in any history book, but it is a communication between the cryptographers and analysts, and the individuals who advise the Prime Minister and the Cabinet of such sensitive activities. Nobody would underestimate the achievement of GCCS, and thereafter GCHQ, during the second world war at Bletchley park, where a disproportionate contribution was made to the prosecution of the war by about 12,000 people who worked at thatv establishment.
However, the difficulty that faces us today, which also faced the GCHQ employees in 1984, is the fact that they are in a sense victims of their own success.
One of the questions raised earlier in the debate was why, when the industrial action took place between 1979 and 1981, the Government took no action until 1984. People ask whether that is evidence of some kind of paranoia, or at least unreasonable behaviour, on the part of the Government and the Prime Minister of the day. However, at no time in the post-war period was GCHQ ever described as or admitted to be a cryptographic organisation. It was never mentioned as an organisation


devoted to the interception and decryption, or indeed to the security, of communications. It was listed simply as the communications department of the Foreign Office.
The change between 1981 and 1984 was brought about by the criminal prosecution of Geoffrey Prime. For the first time in the history of GCHQ and GCCS, somebody had compromised security and provided secrets to the Soviets. As a result of his criminal conduct, Geoffrey Prime was the subject of an investigation and a prosecution at the Old Bailey. It was the disclosures then made publicly at the Old Bailey that enabled the Government to introduce the ban that would have brought, indeed did bring, GCHQ into common parlance.
Opposition Members may have a distant recollection of a Labour Administration, and it is worth remembering that it was a Labour Government who brought criminal proceedings against three people who disclosed the work of GCHQ, and a Labour Government who arranged for the deportation of the two people who wrote the notorious article in Time Out.
All that is neatly forgotten now, but at that time Labour Ministers were persuaded of the enormous importance of the work of GCHQ, and of keeping its activities secret. There was some controversy during that period but, to their undying credit, Labour Ministers were willing to go the whole hog.
The two people were expelled from this country. They exhausted their appeals procedures, but the Home Secretary of the day never lost his backbone. Thus, between 1979 and 1981, the Government were extremely reluctant to draw more attention to GCHQ. Regardless of whether the right decision was made, that was the explanation. The proposition that in 1984 the Prime Minister and the Government took arbitrary action is utter nonsense.
As for the International Labour Organisation, many Conservative Members who have studied its history will have considerable reservations about any judgment or criticism from that quarter. Certainly, until the mid-1950s, the ILO was regarded virtually as a branch of Soviet military intelligence. [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] Yes. I shall not detain the House with a long list of the intelligence connections, but a clear link was established by a royal commission, through, for example, some work conducted in Canada in 1945. ILO members were identified as obvious Soviet intelligence personnel.

Mr. Winnick: I do not understand the logic of the hon. Gentleman's case. Even if it is possible—and indeed, in view of the nature of the Soviet Union, likely—that there were agents in the ILO, so what? No doubt the same was true of the United Nations. During the period of communism in Russia and elsewhere, should we have abolished the United Nations, or discontinued our membership of it, simply because the Soviet Union was doing its usual work of destabilisation, along the lines that the hon. Gentleman has suggested?

Mr. Allason: I am grateful for that intervention. I merely add that I recall the ILO being surprisingly quiet about the rights of workers who wanted to exercise their right to work at Grunwick. The political discrimination of the ILO has been remarkable when it looks for particular issues on which to go in to bat.
GCHQ is an important organisation, and its work must not be undermined by any interruption, albeit temporary.

The issue of continuity has rather been missed in the debate hitherto, so I shall give the House a brief analysis. Continuity is not a matter of simple data collection, or of one individual hunched over a machine—or indeed, if the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is to be believed, switching it on on a Friday and switching it off on a Monday when he comes in to work. There is the matter of collateral.
First, there is the collection of electronic data. That involves more than one person. Several people have to do it to ensure that it is accurate. If there is any corruption, the rest of the text may well be lost. That is the lesson that history teaches us.
Secondly, there must be continuous analysis of the data product. There should be no interruption of that. Finally, none of it is at all relevant unless it can be received in time by the appropriate departments and politicians. Anyone who doubts that should simply look at the history books. It is perfectly clear that, in December 1941, there was an enormous amount of cryptographic evidence of an impending Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, but none of the material was analysed in time. The White House did not receive it until nine days after the attack.
The statistical suggestion has been made that, as there are 6,500 or 7,000 employees at GCHQ, where only 10,000 days have been lost, one can extrapolate that that is the equivalent of everybody not working on one particular day during the year. Things do not work like that. The importance of intelligence is that it saves lives. It is not any kind of game.
If there had been good intelligence, we should not have had to fight the Falklands war or the Gulf war. Back beyond that, good intelligence would have meant that the Israelis would not have been taken by surprise during Yom Kippur in October 1973, and the allies would not have been taken by surprise in Korea, the Americans during the Tet offensive in 1968.
Good intelligence saves lives and prevents bloodshed. Surely that is the point. Any disruption of GCHQ's activities will inevitably compromise intelligence.

Dr. John Gilbert: Good intelligence by itself does not save lives. Whether lives are saved depends on whether people have the will and the sense to act on that intelligence.

Mr. Allason: If the right hon. Gentleman has the honour to serve on the Intelligence and Security Committee, I hope that he will make a greater contribution than that. I fear that his remarks will be remembered by members of the Security Service, Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ, who have saved tens of thousands of lives.
If the right hon. Gentleman is ever a member of the committee and gets to see classified information, I hope that he will return to the House and acknowledge the extraordinary work of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ in saving lives and preventing terrorist bombs being placed. Even within the right hon. Gentleman's short memory, he should be able to recall specific incidents. In one instance, a suspect was followed through the west end carrying bombs—he left bombs in wastepaper baskets, and lives were lost. In particular, one person was killed in a pub. Good intelligence saves lives, and is exceptionally important.

6 pm

Sir John Nott said that GCHQ had operated continuously, and that there had been no threat to its operational efficiency during his term of office. He was talking about the Falklands war, but I described a scenario in which good intentions prevent bloodshed.
The right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) will recall that, when Lord Owen was Foreign Secretary, he presided over a considerable intelligence success. In 1977, there was clear evidence of an Argentine attack in the Falklands, and Britain deployed two hunter-killer submarines in the south Atlantic. The news of their deployment was deliberately leaked in Buenos Aires, and no Argentine attack took place.

Mr. Rogers: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the statement by Sir John Nott, then Secretary of State for Defence, that was much quoted on Second Reading, in Committee and today was made on 14 April 1981.

Mr. Allason: That may be the case, but Sir John did not have responsibility for GCHQ. That brings me neatly to the difference between the status of GCHQ personnel and that of their military counterparts.
A large number of GCHQ's activities are conducted by military personnel—Air Force analysts, two special signals regiments and naval interception operators. There is a difference between them. In legal terms or in terms of the trade union ban, there would have been no difference at all if it had been clear at the time that it would be impossible to disclose the nature of the work undertaken by GCHQ. That relates to my reference to GCHQ as the victim of its own success. Its work was of such priority that it was impossible to disclose its exact nature.
I do not impugn the loyalty of GCHQ staff members, and neither, I am sure, do my right hon. and hon. Friends. Personal disloyalty is not an issue here. All GCHQ staff were given the right of abandoning the opportunity to join an outside trade union, and many exercised it. They also exercised their right to join a staff association. Our earlier discussion related to just 14 people who, for one reason or another, decided against both options. That matter is for them. The Government certainly bent over backwards to provide them with alternative employment and to give them opportunities in a non-classified field outside GCHQ.
Of the many thousands of people who opted to accept financial compensation for the loss of their right to join an outside trade union, a tiny minority chose exclusion. It was entirely self-imposed.
GCHQ is an extraordinarily significant organisation. It makes an enormous contribution to this country's security, and it is on a par with the Security Service and Secret Intelligence Service. I have not heard Opposition Members demand that members of MI5 or SIS should have the right to join the First Division Association. Through their membership of the federation, GCHQ staff enjoy a far greater chance of obtaining better pay and conditions.
When I recently interviewed Yuri Modin, who was for many years a Soviet intelligence officer based in this country, he said, "MI5 officers run the very best union in the country." I asked him what he meant and he replied, "Whenever I wanted to be active, I arranged to have breakfast in exactly the same café in Holland Park avenue every day. It was entirely agreed with my MI5 counterparts that they would be there at 8 o'clock each morning to start work. When I was under surveillance in any pub, I gave an

agreed sign when I was finishing my last drink, so that the MI5 watchers would have an opportunity to drink up in time."
That may be a slightly backhanded compliment from Yuri Modin, for whom I have been trying to obtain a visa for some time, but MI5 has a good union. The SIS and GCHQ have every reason to expect that their own staff associations will exercise a disproportionate amount of influence over the Government of the day. Accordingly, I urge the House to oppose new clause 1.

Mrs. Bridget Prentice: I find myself in the same unfortunate position as on Second Reading of following the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) in his forage through history—not all of which was accurate.
I am a member of a trade union, as are all my right hon. and hon. Friends, and I am proud of it.

Mr. Rogers: We are members of several trade unions.

Mrs. Prentice: That is probably true.
Some Conservative Members have been trade union members, and may still be, and I am sure that they are equally proud of their membership. That is why this debate is so strange. Conservative Members seem to believe that, while it is perfectly acceptable for them to be trade union members, it is unacceptable for other groups—particularly for people who perform important, professional and patriotic work.
The Government's reason for banning trade unions at GCHQ had nothing to do with national security, but was a product of an innate hatred of trade unionism and collectivity by the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. Unfortunately, the present Prime Minister does not have the gumption to stand up and say that that was wrong.
What is it about the Government that makes them so afraid of people who like to work together in a collective and co-operative fashion? What makes the Government unable to realise that that can have a positive outcome on those people, collectively and individually?
Mention was made of the breach of ILO convention 87 that the Government made or are about to make, and it has been said that, by the end of this year, it is likely that the Government will have taken the United Kingdom into the same group as the Sudan, which was censured for slavery, and El Salvador, which was censured for the murder of trade unionists.
It is both disgusting and despicable that the Government are prepared to accept that censure. They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, but they are not. They care nothing for the people who work on their behalf to ensure our national security. Indeed, they do not care for anyone who works in the public service. It has been clear over the past 15 years that the Government, throughout all their strands, have no conception of what it is to work on behalf of others, which so many people believe to be the right thing to do.
Much has been made of the 10,000 days lost at GCHQ through industrial action. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said, that number is tiny when compared with the days lost as a result of sickness. The days-lost argument was dismissed by Sir John Nott, when he explained that operations had not been affected. Days lost stand as nothing when we remember those who have been sacked for being trade unionists at GCHQ.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) talked about one of the 14 men who were sacked at GCHQ. I shall mention Mike Grindley, who was the only Chinese technical linguist. What was the disruption to operational services when the Government sacked Mike Grindley? As I have said, his sacking meant that there was no technical Chinese linguist at GCHQ. What was the Government's response? They chose to close the department.
So much for the collection of data. So much for the need to have that data collected day in and day out for the consistency that Conservative Members have talked about this afternoon. The department was simply shut down. Suddenly, it was no longer important. It is clear that the Government's arguments are fallacious.
What was the basis on which trade unions at GCHQ were banned? It took the Government three years to come to that decision following the industrial action between 1979 and 1981. It is incomprehensible that there is a connection between the ban and the industrial action that took place three years earlier.
What was happening to national security between 1981 and 1984? Were the Government not concerned about national security during that period? Is that why it took them so long to get round to deciding that everything was the fault of trade unions, and that trade unions had to be banned?
I am not surprised that Conservative Members become excited when they find that people have principles and are prepared to stand by them. It was interesting that Conservative Members had little to say in Committee except on trade unions at GCHQ. When the issue arose, they suddenly became fired up. It seems that they do not understand that people might put principles before money. Perhaps that should not surprise us. That attitude or philosphy has driven the Government for the past 15 years. It is beyond their comprehension that people might believe in things that matter to them as individuals rather than in a material fashion.
My right hon. and hon. Friends and I want to put it on record that the employees of GCHQ are both loyal and patriotic. Unfortunately, Conservative Members are incapable of understanding that. The Government's actions in 1984 were shameful. The Government continue to cover themselves in shame while they ban workers at GCHQ from having the right to choose to be a member of a trade union.
When Conservative Members troop through the Lobby this evening to ensure that the ban remains in place, they will be covering themselves with the same shame that should attach to the Sudan, to Brazil, to El Salvador and to any other countries whose Governments do not allow their workers the freedom of expression that we ask for the workers at GCHQ.
Conservative Members may vote down the clause, but the time will come, sooner rather than later, when a Labour Government will return the right of trade unionism to the patriotic, professional and principled men at GCHQ. We shall be proud to do so.

Mr. Thomas Graham: When I was 16 years of age, I served my apprenticeship in a firm at Govan called Matthew Wylies. When I was presented with my first union card, I was a

proud young man. I am now 50 years of age, and I am proud that I still hold the same card. I come from a family of trade unionists. My late father was a trade unionist. He served in the Royal Navy for nine years. He was on HMS Medway when it sank.
I heard that the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) is getting together the bones of a new book. Bearing in mind what he had to say, it will not be a best seller among trade unionists.
I have had many conversations with friends and members of my family about their belief in trade unionism. We have never seen trade unionism as a threat to the nation's security. I am not kidded by the comments of some Conservative Members. I believe that the Government have inherited a vindictive policy from the former Prime Minister, whose hatred of trade unions and anything that smacked of trade unionism was well known. She used trade unionism at GCHQ as a lever.
It is appalling that the folk at GCHQ have had their democratic right to be members of a trade union withdrawn in the name of national security. The argument that the Government have advanced is spurious and undemocratic. The blanket ban is completely illogical.
Thousands of men and women laid down their lives to beat Hitler. Many folk have laid down their lives since for our country in the Falklands and other wars. I am sure that many of those people were members of trade unions. How can we deny those who work in GCHQ the membership of a trade union on the basis that that could jeopardise national security? The Government's approach is appalling. It is a travesty of justice.
Before I entered the Chamber, I explained to a couple of trade unionists what I was about to do and say. They are workers in a royal ordnance factory. I am sure that such people are involved in work that is sensitive in terms of our country's defence. I am sure also that they never exploited their positions by telling others what they are doing. We know that in a crisis they will ensure that ammunition is ready and available for soldiers, sailors and whoever needs it to defend our nation.
People say to me, "Tommy, to be a member of a trade union gives us a sense of pride. We are proud to be part of the great trade union movement of this country. It is an organisation that has always put the country to the fore." More important, it has put people to the fore. It continues to fight for the rights of the people, but not for folk who give away secrets, people who are prepared to see our country invaded and dominated by an enemy.
When I was a young man, I worked at Rolls-Royce. I was involved in the production of military equipment. None of the people with whom I worked was a traitor. Indeed, they would have been angry if they had even been thought of as traitors. Yet the Government have banned the folk at GCHQ from being members of a trade union.
Why are they being denied that right? I have not heard a Conservative Member state clearly why the folk at GCHQ are not entitled to be democratic members of a trade union. The Government's stance is unbelievable.

Mr. Jim Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend find it strange that Conservative Members supported the rights of Solidarity in Poland yet denied the same rights to workers in this country? Does he agree that it is only right-wing Governments, if we bear in mind history, and especially events in Latin America, who attack trade unionists? That is because the positive role of trade


unionists is the defence of democracy. Nevertheless, Conservative Members have had much to say about reds under the bed, for example.

Mr. Graham: My hon. Friend is right. In the past, the Government have used anything to support their arguments for what they feel is right. They support trade unions in Poland, but they do not support them here. Trade unions in Poland can go on strike, but those in Britain cannot. I find such logic distasteful, to say the least.
It would be great if we all had hindsight and could look back and say, "If we had known this, we would not have done that." It would be magic if we had a crystal ball and we could see what faces the world and Britain—we would perhaps see an important step forward in the restructuring of Britain—but while the Government maintain their view on civil rights, particularly the civil rights of those at GCHQ, we shall never have democracy and we shall never make Britain great. The Government do not trust our people. They do not trust the men and women who work at GCHQ to be good solid citizens who will not stoop to treachery. They tell us that they do not believe that those folk should be members of a trade union because it would put national security at risk. I could go on, but I do not wish to speak for too long.
No matter how often the Government try, they cannot justify the trade union ban at GCHQ. We used to hear the statement that trade union decisions for the Labour party conference were reached in a smoke-filled room. We all know that that was nonsense. Even if it did contain an element of truth, the Government's decision was reached over champagne glasses and big cigars by people who do not understand what trade unionism is about. They do not understand that trade unionists see themselves as a part of the country and want to take part in the building of the country.
Only with the engine of trade unionism and with the solid backing of workers with rights will Britain ever become a good place in which to stay. Only then will we see decent pensions and decent education for young people. Only if we give folk democratic rights will they have a sense of pride in their nation and work hard to create a good Britain in which to live. The Government should do the right thing and restore the democratic right of every citizen in this country to be a member of a trade union if they so desire.

Dr. Gilbert: I feel that I should start by apologising to the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), who is not in his place. I clearly over-taxed his mental equipment when I intervened in his speech. I promise never to intervene on him again. I would have liked to have been able to say that to the hon. Gentleman's face, but as he was so discourteous as to leave the Chamber only a couple of moments after my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) began her speech, I feel that I owe him no courtesy on this occasion.
I will not detain the House for long. I support virtually everything that has been said with such eloquence, knowledge and passion by Labour Members, except for one thing. I do not necessarily pray in aid any of the authorities that they have prayed in aid this evening. I do not give a toss what the International Labour Organisation says about the issue at Cheltenham and I am not panting to

know what the European Court of Human Rights has to say about it. I do not need either of those organisations, however august they may be, to tell me that what was done was sleazy and vindictive, had nothing to do with defence considerations and sprang from the Government's mentality, which has left, among other things, this great city of London without any proper governance for many years.
The only other reason that I am on my feet is to make it clear that even those Labour Members who could be regarded as pretty hawkish on defence and security matters—I make no apology for that, never have done and never will do in this place—are enthusiastically at one in support of the new clause and will vote for it with great enthusiasm. We will not do so simply because we are Lobby fodder.

Mr. David Davis: I agree with the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on one thing—I, too, pay credit to the work of the staff at GCHQ. I hope that he will take it well that I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), who said the same thing, as did a number of others.
There have been some well-informed speeches this evening, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French), who has a direct constituency interest and who made some excellent points about the whole debate. I particularly associate myself with one of those points—the credit that he paid to the staff federation. I do not want to labour that point, just to reinforce it. Although he is not here, I appreciate the remarks of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), who has more reason than most to have a special interest in the matter.

Mr. Winnick: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene at such an early stage in his speech. Since the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) did not give way, will the Minister confirm that the staff union, which to us is just a company union, was refused recognition as a genuine, independent trade union by the certification officer? Its application was turned down and rightly so. On appeal, the employment appeals tribunal upheld the decision of the certification officer. As he made clear, that union, if it can be described as such, exists only because the director general allows it to continue as an organisation.

Mr. Davis: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman exactly. He was rather inexact in his question because he used a variety of words such as "genuine", as well as "independent". The one word that he was right about was "independent". About 80 trade unions are listed as not independent. Like the staff federation, many of them have been commended by the certification officer for being effective, which they are, but they are not certified as independent. They include the National Union of Mineworkers area unions. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has any reason to run those down.
Clearly, it is the first duty of the Government to safeguard the security of the nation. In the context of the new clause, it is the principal responsibility of Government to maintain the security and effectiveness of GCHQ. The Government set out their objective in 1981—to ensure the continuous undisrupted operation of GCHQ. The Government's action in 1984 has been effective in ensuring the continuous operation of GCHQ since then.
Disruption of GCHQ operations posed a substantive risk to the country's security. Industrial action was taken


with the express intention of causing disruption and it succeeded in doing so. The Government clearly had a duty to act.
The continued effective and efficient operation of GCHQ requires that there is no division or confusion of loyalties.

Mr. Graham: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Davis: I will give way in a moment. I want to make at least a little progress.
In practice, membership of external unions has led to a risk of divided loyalties, a point that I shall make in some detail later. That is not a theoretical matter—it has happened in the past. Labour's case today, and to some extent that of the Liberal Democrats, has rested on arguments that go something like, "The strikes did not do any material harm and if they did, that was not really intended anyway, it was just a spat with the management locally". All those arguments are fatuous.
The Opposition's position is that industrial action involving GCHQ in the period 1979 to 1981 did not harm national security. How can they be so sure? The point of GCHQ is to listen continuously for possible threats to the country or to its citizens. Any break in its vigil poses a potential threat. With modern techniques, vast amounts of data can be sent in a short space of time. A few seconds' gap is enough to miss a vital instruction to terrorists.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Were there any gaps?

Mr. Davis: Yes.
In these days of burst transmission, even a speech by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) could be transmitted in a few seconds. We should bear in mind that one could be trying to intercept, for example, one-word instructions that may launch an operation, a terrorist action or something of that nature. The whole point about GCHQ is that it operates seven days a week, 24 hours a day, 60 minutes in the hour.

Mr. Carlile: Are we hearing a Minister say for the very first time that there were some gaps in communications—that they were not received? He should answer that directly, because if there were, this is the first time that the claim has been made in the 16 years since the dispute began.

Mr. Davis: I shall come back to the point in a minute.
It is not possible to forecast when a state-sponsored terrorist organisation will communicate with its masters, or when other actions by an antagonistic state will occur. In pursuit of the maintenance of continuous operations, it is vital that staff at GCHQ do not face conflicts of loyalty that may lead to a loss of efficiency, or to a loss of coverage, or to any breakdown of GCHQ activities.
In 1979–81, 10,000 man days were lost as a result of union action, and they were lost in critical areas of work. The right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) made a rather fatuous point in this connection. He said that the 10,000 days lost were fewer than the number of days lost owing to sickness or holidays, but the latter, of course, were not targeted. GCHQ, like any properly run organisation, is designed to allow for absences for jury days, holidays and so on.
The industrial action was set against the background of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Iranian hostage

crisis, Soviet troops on the border of Poland and rising state-sponsored terrorism in a number of countries. The Opposition must accept that there was a least some disruption. The unions themselves accepted as much.

Dr. John Cunningham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the statement by the former Secretary of State for Defence, Sir John Nott, that the effectiveness of GCHQ was never put in jeopardy?

Mr. Davis: I happen to have Sir John's exact words to hand, as reported in the Official Report:
The selective action by non-industrial civil servants has hindered some defence activities, but neither training exercises nor essential operations have been interrupted."—[Official Report, 14 April 1981; Vol. 3, c. 136.]
Later, the then Prime Minister said that Sir John was referring only to military operations:
GCHQ did not come under his then Department and does not now."—[Official Report, 31 January 1984; Vol. 53, c. 136.]
As I told the Committee, about 3,000 soldiers act on behalf of GCHQ gathering military data. The industrial action did not interfere with their duties because they could not go on strike in any case.
As I was saying, the Opposition must accept that there was some disruption because the unions themselves accepted that. At the Employment Select Committee meeting on 8 February 1984, at page 39 and section 77, it was reported that Mr. McCall of the Council of Civil Service Trade Unions had been asked:
have you disrupted security in the past, by industrial action?"—
and that he had replied
I think the straightforward answer to that is yes, we have.
The Opposition clearly feel that all this was not a risk to security. I should be interested to know what degree of disruption they believe is acceptable at GCHQ. The Government's view is: none.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Minister now answer my straight question? Does he claim for the first time that there was any interruption to any message, or that any transmission was not recorded, as a result of this action? The Minister has made the implication; now that he has made it, the House is entitled to a straight answer.

Mr. Davis: I must tell the hon. and learned Gentleman again: there were some reductions in cover. Some material may therefore have been missed—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Opposition Members seem to think that unimportant, yet we are talking about a time of state-sponsored terrorism and of the Soviet Union being on the borders of Poland. Opposition Members clearly believe that some drop in cover was all right. Now we know what price to put on the Labour party's commitment to patriotism—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. It is getting to the point where I cannot hear the Minister. I, at least, wish to do so.

Mr. Davis: I have dispatched Labour's point about there having been no loss of cover and about the industrial action having caused no damage.
The other Labour argument is that the action was not intentional. What happened at GCHQ between 1979 and 1981 was a deliberate attempt on the part of the civil service unions to disrupt the operations of a vital national defence asset. I shall tell the story not in my words but in those of the trade unions involved. A national officer of the Civil and Public Services Association was quoted as saying, under the Labour Government in February 1979:


The strike would completely paralyse Government communications, both internally and externally.
A local official was quoted a few days later as saying:
Our action will seriously affect operations by at least 80 per cent., as our members are specialists."—[Official Report, 27 February 1984; Vol. 55, c. 27–28.]
That point seems to have been overlooked by many Opposition Members. This is not Government propaganda; it is what the trade unions themselves had to say.
I should like next to quote evidence given to the Select Committee on Employment:
During the period of industrial action in 1981 there was one occasion on which an approach was made by a senior official of GCHQ … to … one of the national Civil Service trade unions … The reply … was 'Thank you. You are telling me where I am hurting Mrs. Thatcher the most."
There was no lessening of pressure as a result. The unions announced in the same month:
There will be a range of selective and disruptive action which will affect Britain's secret communications surveillance network. There will be both national and international repercussions.
And on 3 April a senior union official said:
This is the most crucial station we have hit so far. We are going to hit this Department 'as hard as we can.—[Official Report, 27 February 1984; Vol. 55, c. 27–28.]
So the areas of attack by industrial activity had clearly been carefully selected. The civil service unions' campaign report No.1 of 1981 clearly stated:
The use of selective strike action by members in sensitive areas is a key part of our campaign. Our ultimate success depends on the extent to which…defence readiness is hampered.
That indeed was the intent. The unions may not have been in a position to know precisely how effective their action was, but it could hardly have been called accidental.
There is thus clear evidence of the effects of divisions of loyalty on the staff of GCHQ and of how those effects could be adverse for the operations of GCHQ. There is also clear evidence of the willingness of past union movement leaders to misuse their position to damage the country's security in pursuit of their own goals. I do not say that today's union leaders would necessarily behave in the same way, but that is really not the point. The new clause proposes a change in the law that would presumably apply for the foreseeable future. We cannot guarantee that there would not be similar industrial action at some point in that future.
The right hon. Member for Copeland made a number of points that I could not follow. He said, for instance, that there was a 1991 vote at the ILO. I can find no evidence of such a vote. The last one was in 1989, and we won that one. He also claimed that the ban was arbitrary. The decision of the European Commission on Human Rights stated, on page 31, in the second paragraph:
The action taken was in no way arbitrary.
Several hon. Members talked about the International Labour Organisation. In his excellent contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) highlighted the complete humbug of Labour Members' speeches, as exemplified by the comments made by the right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert).
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) asked me to comment specifically on some matters. The Government do not accept that they are in breach of convention 87, which must be read in conjunction with convention 151, which explicitly provides separate arrangements for public servants employed on work of a highly sensitive nature. If GCHQ

public servants are not employed on work of a sensitive nature I do not know who is. The Government have noted the comments of the ILO, have engaged in substantive discussions with the unions—those were taken on in good faith by both sides—and are still willing to consider any proposals that the unions bring forward.
In a written answer of 13 January 1994 the Prime Minister said:
I met representatives of the civil service unions to discuss trade union membership at GCHQ at their request following a series of discussions they had held with officials. I explained that the Government's overriding objective remained to ensure the maintenance of continuous operations at GCHQ necessary for the protection of national security. In that context it was necessary also to ensure that the staff were not subject to potential conflicts of loyalty.
Against that background, however, I indicated that the Government were prepared to enable the Government Communications Staff Federation, the registered trade union for GCHQ staff, to affiliate to the Council of Civil Service Unions, subject to conditions to guarantee its continuing independence…The national trade unions have indicated that they do not regard this as acceptable. There are no plans for further meetings, but the Government remain willing to discuss any further proposals that the unions may wish to put forward."—[Official Report, 13 January 1994; Vol. 235, c. 254–55.]
In answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), I say that that is still the case.
I advise the House to oppose the new clause.

Mr. Rogers: Although we agreed to share the available time, unfortunately the Minister has taken up a great deal of it. As many hon. Members want to go to the memorial service for our late colleague, Ms Jo Richardson, which is due to start very soon, I shall confine my remarks to one or two points.
The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) said that the question of GCHQ had dominated the Committee proceedings. As members of the Committee know, that is absolute nonsense. We dealt with other aspects. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) talked about the rights of people currently working at GCHQ. I simply reiterate a point that was made to the hon. Gentleman: if the rights of GCHQ workers are so important, why do not the Government, under their own legislation, allow them a ballot on the question of their joining a trade union of their choice? The staff federation, regardless of what the Minister has said, is almost like a Stalinist trade union: the workers can have it so long as it is approved by the director. That is why the certification officer has not recognised the federation as a full and proper trade union. The Government's argument is absolutely spurious.
The whole debate is based on whether GCHQ is under threat if people take any action or are not there. Apart from the fact that the trade unions have given the Government a firm no-strike undertaking—a firm undertaking of exactly the same type, for example, as that which the police give —it should be remembered that data collection at GCHQ occupies less than 10 per cent. of the work force. The industrial action that took place in 1979 and between 1979 and 1981—in this connection I remind the House of remarks made by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux)—arose because the management had overturned a national pay agreement without any consultation whatever.
The number of days lost, in relative terms, was about 0.2 per cent. of the total work time during a period of two years. Over that period, up-front operations were at no time affected in any way. That is something that the Minister


can check quite easily. The majority of people at GCHQ work a 9 to 5.30 shift. There are other operations. Various electronic devices are used in data collection, and the idea that someone with a pencil sits listening to what our enemies are saying on the other side of the world is absolute nonsense—as much as is the Government's argument against trade unions at GCHQ.
I reiterate a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham): one of the first acts of the Labour Government when they come to power in a couple of years' time will be to restore this basic human right to the workers at GCHQ.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 222, Noes 283.

Division No. 221]
[6.44 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Eagle, Ms Angela


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Eastham, Ken


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Enright, Derek


Armstrong, Hilary
Etherington, Bill


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Ashton, Joe
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Austin-Walker, John
Fisher, Mark


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Foster, Don (Bath)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Foulkes, George


Bell, Stuart
Fraser, John


Bennett, Andrew F.
Fyfe, Maria


Benton, Joe
Galbraith, Sam


Bermingham, Gerald
Galloway, George


Berry, Roger
Garrett, John


Blair, Tony
George, Bruce


Blunkett, David
Gerrard, Neil


Boyes, Roland
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bradley, Keith
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Godsiff, Roger


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Gordon, Mildred


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Graham, Thomas


Burden, Richard
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Byers, Stephen
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Caborn Richard
Grocott, Bruce


Callaghan, Jim
Gunnell, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hall, Mike


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hanson, David


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hardy, Peter


Cann, Jamie
Harman, Ms Harriet


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Harvey, Nick


Chisholm, Malcolm
Heppell, John


Clapham, Michael
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hoey, Kate


Clelland, David
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Coffey, Ann
Hood, Jimmy


Cohen, Harry
Hoon, Geoffrey


Connarty, Michael
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hoyle, Doug


Corston, Ms Jean
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cox, Tom
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cummings, John
Jamieson, David


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Janner, Greville


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Dafis, Cynog
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Darling, Alistair
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Davidson, Ian
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Keen, Alan


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Denham, John
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Dewar, Donald
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dixon, Don
Kirkwood, Archy


Dobson, Frank
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dowd, Jim
Lewis, Terry


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Litherland, Robert


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Livingstone, Ken





Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Radice, Giles


Llwyd, Elfyn
Randall, Stuart


Loyden, Eddie
Raynsford, Nick


Lynne, Ms Liz
Redmond, Martin


McAllion, John
Reid, Dr John


McCartney, Ian
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


McFall, John
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


McKelvey, William
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Mackinlay, Andrew
Rogers, Allan


McLeish, Henry
Rooker, Jeff


Maclennan, Robert
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McMaster, Gordon
Rowlands, Ted


McWilliam, John
Ruddock, Joan


Madden, Max
Salmond, Alex


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Sedgemore, Brian


Mahon, Alice
Sheerman, Barry


Mandelson, Peter
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marek, Dr John
Simpson, Alan


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Maxton, John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Michael, Alun
Soley, Clive


Milburn, Alan
Spearing, Nigel


Miller, Andrew
Spellar, John


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Steinberg, Gerry


Morgan, Rhodri
Stevenson, George


Morley, Elliot
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Straw, Jack


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Mudie, George
Turner, Dennis


Mullin, Chris
Wallace, James


Murphy, Paul
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wareing, Robert N


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Wicks, Malcolm


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Wigley, Dafydd


O'Neill, Martin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Parry, Robert
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Patchett, Terry
Wilson, Brian


Pendry, Tom
Winnick, David


Pickthall, Colin
Wise, Audrey


Pike, Peter L.
Worthington, Tony


Pope, Greg
Wray, Jimmy


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wright, Dr Tony


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)



Prescott, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Primarolo, Dawn
Mr. Jon Owen Jones and


Purchase, Ken
Mr. Eric Illsley.

NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Boswell, Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Amess, David
Bowden, Andrew


Arbuthnot, James
Bowis, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Brandreth, Gyles


Ashby, David
Brazier, Julian


Aspinwall, Jack
Bright, Graham


Atkins, Robert
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Baldry, Tony
Burns, Simon


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Burt, Alistair


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Butcher, John


Batiste, Spencer
Butler, Peter


Beggs, Roy
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Bendall, Vivian
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Carrington, Matthew


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Carttiss, Michael


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Churchill, Mr


Body, Sir Richard
Clappison, James


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Booth, Hartley
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)






Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coe, Sebastian
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Congdon, David
Hunter, Andrew


Conway, Derek
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Jack, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jenkin, Bernard


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jessel, Toby


Cormack, Patrick
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Couchman, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cran, James
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Key, Robert


Day, Stephen
Kilfedder, Sir James


Deva, Nirj Joseph
King, Rt Hon Tom


Devlin, Tim
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dickens, Geoffrey
Knapman, Roger


Dicks, Terry
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knox, Sir David


Dover, Den
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Duncan, Alan
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Durant, Sir Anthony
Legg, Barry


Eggar, Tim
Leigh, Edward


Elletson, Harold
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lidington, David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lightbown, David


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lord, Michael


Evennett, David
Luff, Peter


Faber, David
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fabricant, Michael
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
MacKay, Andrew


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Maclean, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fishburn, Dudley
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Forman, Nigel
Madel, Sir David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Malone, Gerald


Forth, Eric
Mans, Keith


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Marland, Paul


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Marlow, Tony


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


French, Douglas
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Fry, Sir Peter
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gallie, Phil
Mates, Michael


Gardiner, Sir George
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Garnier, Edward
Merchant, Piers


Gill, Christopher
Mills, Iain


Gillan, Cheryl
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Moate, Sir Roger


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Gorst, John
Monro, Sir Hector


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Nelson, Anthony


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Grylls, Sir Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hague, William
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Norris, Steve


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hampson, Dr Keith
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hanley, Jeremy
Ottaway, Richard


Hannam, Sir John
Page, Richard


Hargreaves, Andrew
Paice, James


Harris, David
Patnick, Irvine


Hawksley, Warren
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hendry, Charles
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Pawsey, James


Hicks, Robert
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Horam, John
Rathbone, Tim


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Richards, Rod





Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Robathan, Andrew
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Thomason, Roy


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Thurnham, Peter


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Sackville, Tom
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Tracey, Richard


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Trend, Michael


Shaw, David (Dover)
Trotter, Neville


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Viggers, Peter


Shersby, Michael
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Sims, Roger
Walden, George


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Waller, Gary


Soames, Nicholas
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Speed, Sir Keith
Waterson, Nigel


Spencer, Sir Derek
Watts, John


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Wells, Bowen


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Spink, Dr Robert
Whitney, Ray


Spring, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Sproat, Iain
Widdecombe, Ann


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wilkinson, John


Steen, Anthony
Willetts, David


Stephen, Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Stern, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Stewart, Allan
Wolfson, Mark


Streeter, Gary
Yeo, Tim


Sumberg, David



Sweeney, Walter
Tellers for the Noes:


Sykes, John
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Mr. Timothy Wood.


Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1

THE SECRET INTELLIGENCE SERVICE

Mr. Rogers: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 15, leave out 'with particular reference' and insert
'and where there is a threat'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 4, in page 2, line 1, after '(b)', insert 'where it is substantially'.
No. 6, in page 2, line 3, after 'crime', insert
'which if not prevented would have a serious effect on law and order in the United Kingdom, on citizens of the United Kingdom or on employees of the Crown'.
No. 38, in clause 11, page 8, line 34, at end insert—
'(3) The Secretary of State shall by order define the meaning of "national security", "economic well-being" and "serious crime".
(4) No order shall be made under subsection (3) above unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(5) An order made under subsection (3) above shall cease to have effect at the end of five years beginning with the day on which it came into effect.'

Mr. Rogers: Clause 1 deals with the principles, circumstances and guidelines under which the security services may operate. The Opposition feel—I think we demonstrated this in Committee—that the clause is ambiguous and places few controls on the operations. The clause gives no indication of what actions are acceptable under its remit—of what laws can be broken and, except in the most general terms, for what purposes; it describes the shape but gives no one an idea of the colour of the matter.
The Lord Chancellor stated in the other place that nothing in the Bill put the security and intelligence services outside the law. He was right. But is not that simply because the clause is so all-embracing that it puts every action inside the law to start with? For example, is a shoot-to-kill policy acceptable in a civilised society? I am not saying that a shoot-to-kill policy exists; its existence or otherwise is not a matter for discussion this evening, but it could certainly exist within the remit of the Bill.
7 pm
It can be argued, as it was in Committee, that clauses 8 and 9 cover those problems in the sense that the warranting of the secret services and their ability to operate outside the law are tightly controlled by the Foreign Secretary. However, I am sure that when we come to discuss the warranting of certain actions, we shall see that the guidelines laid down for warranting give the secret intelligence services an open field in which to operate.
The problem with the Bill is that it puts the secret intelligence services outside the law. The warrants and authorisations in the Bill are a circumscription but they are not sufficient because the warrants are issued by the Secretary of State, who is not accountable to anyone—not even a court of law. Therefore, there is no legal proscription. Everything drops off at the commissioner and the tribunal. No one can have recourse to a court of law whether in the normal process of events or as a complainant. That is laid down in the Bill. That means that there is no legal proscription of the actions of the security and intelligence services. The Secretary of State is not a judge or a court of law, so there is no legal proscription. As we discussed in Committee, any task that one can think of—murder in an extreme situation, clubbing, imprisonment, torture or blackmail—could be put into action under a warrant. If the Secretary of State feels that he is prepared to operate that power without recourse to any secondary process of accountability—and when we come to discuss clause 10 we shall find that there is no real process of accountability—he will certainly have it under the Bill.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The hon. Gentleman would be well advised to read the narrow terms of the warrant-making power in clause 5. He will see that it relates to
entry on or interference with property or with wireless telegraphy".
It has none of the other effects to which he refers. He may be talking about clause 7 authorisations. If he is, we can discuss that.

Mr. Rogers: The Minister is right. I said that the warranting of certain actions came under another clause, which we would discuss later. The Minister ought to consider what is enclosed within clause 1. Rather than sitting there smugly thinking that he has made a rather smart debating point, he ought to realise that clause 1 lays out the structure, guidelines and controls under which the secret and intelligence services can operate.
I remind the Minister what the amendments say. We seek to close the open field that is given to the secret intelligence services. For example, amendment No. 3 refers to implementation of the powers where there is seen to be a threat to this country and to national security. Amendment No. 4 says that the powers should be

implemented "where it is substantially" in the interests of the country—in other words, not for matters of a trivial nature. Amendment No. 6 refers to any crime
which if not prevented would have a serious effect on law and order in the United Kingdom, on citizens of the United Kingdom or on employees of the Crown".
We are saying that the secret and intelligence services ought not to have the power in an open way, as they do under the Bill. The Opposition accept that we need to have a Security Service and that it needs to be secret. That is why we support the Bill. However, we are anxious to ensure that the service operates and is tasked in a proper way and that it is accountable. There will always be certain circumstances—for example, if we are faced with the forces of nazism or fascism or with extreme communist societies—in which the means are justified by the end. But in normal circumstances they are not. The Bill should contain general proscriptions. That is why the amendments are reasonable.
We simply want to ensure that the secret and intelligence services are properly accountable. We recognise their role, going into the next century. We firmly believe that they will be important. Our amendments refer to "serious crime". The security services are important because we know that our society is under attack—by organised crime and drug running and peddling, for example. It is necessary for us to have intelligence on those activities so that we can take the necessary actions to prevent our society from being corrupted.
On the other hand, we feel that we have a point and that some form of proscription should be laid down against the open-ended tasking that is available under clause 1. Even the warranting under later clauses does not sufficiently proscribe the actions that might be taken.
I know that it is enormously difficult to reconcile an effective secret service with effective accountability, but that is at the heart of what a democratic society is about. If we do not resolve that difficult problem in an equitable way, we fail in the construction and operation of our society. There is no provision in the Bill under which the secret and intelligence services could be brought to book. That is why the amendments are good and reasonable.
I know that the Minister will argue that the Intelligence
and Security Committee will be set up and will be reported
to, but the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister will control the information which is given to that committee. They are the very same people who task the intelligence services with their job. So the Secretary of State will task the intelligence services under clause 1, will have the power to issue them with warrants under clause 5 and will be the only person to whom they are accountable.
We shall discuss the oversight committee under clause 10. Any information which will come into it will have to be laundered by the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister and, even before that, by the intelligence services. I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends will make strong arguments when we discuss clause 10 for giving extra powers to the committee so that it can obtain information and ensure that the intelligence services are accountable.
Clause 1 is ambiguous. It sets few guidelines and controls for the services and their operations. Our amendments deal with their principal roles and the circumstances within which they may operate. The amendments are reasonable and I ask the House to support them.

Mr. Allason: I am anxious about any suggestion of guidelines and controls as identified in clause 1 and especially in amendment No. 6. The Secret Intelligence Service has a wide remit and has consistently operated under strict ministerial controls. I understand that there was only one occasion, in 1956, when it slipped out of that control. That was an unfortunate lapse, which created a considerable internal row and cost Sir John Sinclair, who was the chief at the time, his job. On that occasion, a surveillance operation conducted under the Ordjonikideze went wrong and Buster Crabb lost his life. The Prime Minister was furious. It turned out that the Foreign Office adviser had lost his father on the morning of the day of the authorisation. As a result, the operation was authorised, with unfortunate and disastrous consequences. I do not know of any other occasion on which the service abused its responsibilities. The organisation would argue that on that occasion it had received full authority and that there had perhaps been an error in providing it.
Since that time the organisation has surely always sought Foreign Office consent and ministerial support for each operation. That is why it has never been the, subject of the sort of investigations conducted in the United States by the Church committee, former Vice-President Rockefeller and others.
The organisation certainly has a very clean record on assassinations. I recall Sir Dick White being especially anxious when Graham Greene wrote "The Human Factor" and suggested that the chief of the Secret Intelligence Service would authorise the assassination of a foreigner—or anyone else for that matter. Sir Dick White told me that that allegation was profoundly offensive, partly because such action simply was not structurally possible within the organisation and—more to the point—partly because it gave credence to the mythology that had been created around the SIS, which was that it was prepared to brook murder and mayhem. That is most emphatically not the case.
One consequence of that mythology is that it tends to blur the issue when the SIS is mentioned in a criminal trial. When the Secretary of State opened his remarks on Second Reading he gave an example that is extremely relevant to amendment No. 6, describing a case in which the Secret Intelligence Service had provided clandestine surveillance of a drugs suspect in an unnamed country and had been able to provide information that was of enormous use to the authorities.
My worry is about what will happen when someone is brought to trial in this country and the SIS is referred to. That will offer defence counsel a tremendous opportunity to exact great advantage. Defence counsel will be able to tell the jury, "The SIS is involved in this prosecution and we all know about them. They have assassinated people." He will be able to make many completely irrelevant allegations and may compromise the chances of obtaining a conviction. That is a very real worry, especially as the service has never indulged in criminal investigations and as we have a national drugs intelligence unit to co-ordinate intelligence on suspected drugs offences. The unit was set up by Colin Hewett, a distinguished deputy assistant commissioner at Scotland yard and a former head of special branch.
7.15pm
I have strong reservations if a straightforward criminal offence such as drug smuggling, which is not a direct threat to the realm, is to be subject to SIS interference and surveillance, just as I have reservations about the Security Service being involved in anti-terrorist operations. Neither organisation has ever involved itself in such activities. One could interpret those developments by suggesting that the services are taking in washing. With the end of the cold war, one would have thought that there would be quite enough for them to do monitoring the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, biological and bacteriological weapons and other important threats to this country. It is worrying that they are actively seeking work on behalf of the regular police authorities, and it may well compromise criminal prosecutions.
Although I oppose amendment No. 6, I very much hope that two messages will go from the House this evening. The first is that ordinary crime will be dealt with in an ordinary way in the Old Bailey, without screens to protect witnesses or anything of that sort that would smack of special treatment for a special crime; drug smuggling and peddling are criminal offences and should be treated as such. Secondly, the Front-Bench Opposition spokesman should not give any credence to the fact that anything like a shoot-to-kill policy exists; nor should he discuss it. That is absolute nonsense. As far as I am aware, the only shoot-to-kill policy that exists is that exercised by the Provisional IRA.

Mr. Rogers: I agree that ordinary crime ought to be dealt with in the ordinary way by the police force and police officers. But there surely comes a point where, if intelligence is available and one is able to bring a particularly vicious bunch of drug smugglers to book—with the tentacles of organised crime ever present, many people think that we are in grave danger of corrupting our society—there is an argument for secrecy. Surely there is a case for saying that people could give evidence without giving away their identity.

Mr. Allason: That is an interesting point. The hon. Gentleman says that secrecy is necessary when such operations are conducted and he is right. Police officers are all subject to the Official Secrets Act. More to the point, they are used to giving evidence in court, have been trained and are subject to internal discipline. Who has heard of an SIS officer carrying a warrant card or being subject to any discipline that is available to external scrutiny? That does not happen, and there is a good reason for police officers, who are subject to that sort of scrutiny, conducting criminal investigations.
My anxiety relates to the fact that, if SIS officers are involved in criminal prosecutions, they will have to appear in court; as they have never done so before, they will not be very good at it. Special branch officers who give evidence in court are hopeless, usually because they have appeared in court before only once.
It is not just a matter of collecting intelligence, of mounting a successful prosecution and of giving evidence in court; it goes way beyond that. I believe that police officers, not the Secret Intelligence Service, should exercise that function. If we are in such a state that the Secret Intelligence Service is to become a branch of the


police service, as appears to be advocated by the Opposition, that is a very interesting development with considerable implications for human rights.

Mr. Rogers: I know that the hon. Gentleman is an expert at writing fiction, but I wish that he would not exercise that function is relation to what I say. I never said—or even hinted—that the Secret Intelligence Service ought to be a branch of the police force. I said that, in the normal run of events, ordinary crime should be handled by the police, but that I could envisage circumstances whereby, if the witnesses who had to appear before the court were members of the Secret Intelligence Service, the court should allow them to give their evidence in secret or from behind a screen.

Mr. Allason: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. On a point of fact, I must explain that I am primarily an historian—I have written 17 books of non-fiction—although it is true that I have made two not very good attempts at writing thrillers, which are fiction.
I think the hon. Gentleman said that when a crime was particularly vicious or when criminals were particularly determined it might be appropriate to involve the Secret Intelligence Service. I dispute that. I am simply saying that it will be a gift to defence counsel in that it will provide them with an opportunity to muddy the water on behalf of their clients.
However vicious the crime, it must be dealt with by normal criminal law and by police officers who are used to giving evidence in court. To be entirely candid, I am not sure that, in the Secretary of State's example, it would be possible for the prosecution to mount a case or obtain a conviction based on the evidence of an SIS officer who is operating illicitly overseas and collecting clandestine surveillance information. Such information may be useful, but I do not believe that that is an appropriate function of the Secret Intelligence Service and I very much hope that the House will reject amendment No. 6.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: The amendments are trying to limit and, it seems to me—subject to correction from the Opposition Front Bench—specifically focus the remit of the intelligence service. I want to speak in particular to amendment No. 38, in the name of the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen).
We discussed the remit and function of the intelligence service in the debate on the Bill to which this legislation is joined—the Security Services Act 1989 and, through it, the Official Secrets Act 1989. The debate about the remit, function and definition of national security—as set out in the hon. Gentleman's amendment—has exercised the minds of a great many people, including the Mcdonald commission on freedom and security in Canada.
The Government have a great difficulty in this area. I am not unsympathetic to their plight; it is terribly difficult to define and refine what is necessary in these terms without the benefit of a White Paper and without any independent examination of the issues or input from Opposition Members and others. Without a proper examination of what the services do now, how does one judge what should be done?
Clause 1(2)(a) contains the words
in the interests of national security with particular reference".
The Opposition seek to drop those words and insert the words

where there is a threat".
I think that the proposal is endeavouring to make a proper and sensible limitation. It then refers to
the defence and foreign policies of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom".
I know that the Minister, who has conducted the debate very honourably, will find all manner of reasons for refuting my point, but I can make an interpretation of those words. The "interests of national security" are not defined. There was a savage attack on the foreign policies of Her Majesty's Government in this country. It occurred when the Government tried to bring forward a deeply federalist Bill and make us part of a state in Europe. William Cash of Stafford was clearly subversive and a number of hon. Gentlemen have also pursued the undoing of Her Majesty's domestic and foreign affairs policy. There is no doubt that we gathered together in a covert fashion to discuss these matters. We also sat down and thought about how we could conspire to undermine the Government's attempt to thrust us into a sovereign European state.
The intelligence service—which is no doubt listening intently—is no doubt aware that, if the Secretary of State so deemed it, the clause could be interpreted to mean that, in the interests of national security, that action was contrary to the well-being of the Government. That is why a number of people have tried to limit, or more specifically focus, these clauses—and more power to the Opposition Front Bench and the hon. Member for Leyton.
These are very serious arguments and there are many more points to adduce. We should remember that the intelligence service can link up with the Security Service, and the remit of the Security Service can be transformed at the behest of the Secretary of State and at the request of the head of the service. The structure is very loose; it is not coherent. It is a typical British muddle. It is not even as well defined as the Maxwell Fyfe directive of 1952—I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will correct me if I have the date wrong.
Where are the limiting clauses in the Bill? The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) suggests that there are none. That is the truth of the matter. This is a jumble of words that is open to interpretation. After all, did not Mr. Churchill stand in this House and launch a savage attack upon no less than the
defence and foreign policies of Her Majesty's Government"?
Of course he did.
I refer again to the Mcdonald commission. Where is the limitation of remit? Where is the recognition of the lawful dissent clause? On Second Reading, I said that it is very important to have some declaratory things in a statute covering an area that is so sensitive to the well-being and freedoms that we enjoy as British citizens, such as our understanding of civil liberties. None of that is in the Bill.
I do not want to make a big thing of it, but the Bill should have been incorporated into the Security Service Act 1989. There should be one compendium Bill dealing with the functions of oversight and so on. It should relate to all the services set out in this legislation. Instead we have two pieces of paper and two different, wide definitions. I give a cheer for the Opposition for trying to limit this Bill.
I also accept that, in a sense, the Government already have the Bill; it was given in the House of Lords and in this place. There has been no serious attempt to see whether there was a proper structure in which oversight and all the


other functions set out in this Bill could be pulled together and defined. First and central to this was the definition sought by the hon. Member for Leyton.

Mr. Rogers: I think that the hon. Member is being a little unfair to the members of the Committee, who worked hard to put up very substantial arguments in order to alter the framework of the Bill in its final form.

Mr. Shepherd: I am suitably rebuked; that is a fair point. I am crying out, in my anguish, about the way in which one does business. There was no White Paper. There has been no effort to maintain in what way this is a proper security force of the realm, what its definition and focus is and how one relates all these points to it.
I wanted to make a brief speech. Most of the arguments have been addressed by the Security Service Act. Once one has a pre-delivered piece of legislation, which is secure in the heart of the Executive and not open to any form of discussion, the House is traduced because it can respond only along the tramlines of the thinking of the present Executive about these matters.
I do not believe that the Bill, once enacted, will last for ever, if only because the civil liberties lobby and others will want greater security and definition on certain points. For that reason, I did not mean to criticise or to imply criticism of the Committee. I just wanted to make it clear that I support the principle behind the amendments. I understand why it is unlikely that they will be accepted, because the Executive have a view of how these matters should be conducted. They do not want any genuine limitation governing the recognition of lawful dissent, nor do they believe that it should be excluded from the remit of the security services. We are therefore at the behest of the benign intent of the Secretary of State whose direction those services follow.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) for his support of new clause 2, the case for which he emphasised with as eloquent a contribution as all the others that he has made throughout the passage of the Bill. His voice should be echoed loudly on the Opposition Benches as well.
The hon. Member referred to amendment No. 38, which is a modest one. It calls for a definition of the terms "national security", " economic well-being" and "serious crime". After all, hundreds of millions of pounds are spent by the security services on activities relating specifically to those terms. The Government should attempt to define what they mean. My modest amendment would also ensure that such definition should be contained in an order, which should be renewed—subject to debate—at least once every five years.
In parliamentary questions I have asked the Government to define the terms "national security", "economic well-being" and "serious crime". The Government replied that those terms are well understood, but, given the seriousness of the matter, that answer is not good enough.
At the moment we leave it to the intelligence service, the people who carry out the relevant tasks, to interpret what those terms mean. We might as well say, "We are leaving it up to you, chaps and lasses, to interpret them as

you like." That is an extremely dangerous course to follow. I am not suggesting that those in the security services are not good people, but we are aware of instances where those in the intelligence service have attempted to subvert legitimate Governments in this country. We are also aware that the powers of the security services have been misused in other countries. The death last week of President Nixon brings to mind such an example. Those powers were also misused in Nazi Germany. Just because Britain has not suffered from the problem to that extent—as far as we are aware—does not mean that we should not have the legislative safeguards that other countries have thought it necessary to introduce.
The definition of the terms set out in amendment No. 38 gives a legal basis for the actions that members of the security services take. If they step outside their proper remit, they could, one hopes, be brought to account by the Intelligence and Security Committee. It is wrong to leave the definition of those terms to the people who carry out particular functions connected with them.
The matter should have been dealt with in the Security Service Act 1989, section 1 of which states that the function the service should be the
protection of national security and, in particular, its protection against threats from espionage, terrorism and sabotage, from the activities of agents of foreign powers and from actions intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means.
That definition gave the security services the scope to hold personal data on individuals and its terms are potentially extremely wide. The use of the words "in particular" makes it clear that, although the security services place emphasis on those activities mentioned in section 1, the terms of the Act do not exclude other activities deemed as relevant to national security. The security services could interpret political demonstrations as a threat to national security or the activities of right-wing Conservative Members protesting about Maastricht, as the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said. A clearer definition of the function of the security services is therefore needed in the Bill, because whether certain other activities fall within the remit of MI5 or MI6 is, at the moment, left to be determined by members of those services. That cannot be right.
My amendment would oblige the Secretary of State to give the definitions of the terms "national security", "economic well-being" and "serious crime" and would allow the House to approve them at least once in every Parliament. That approval would give those special powers the legitimacy that they require. I do not think that a debate every five years to renew and consider those definitions is too much to ask for, especially when we compare that with the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which comes up for renewal every year. At least such a debate would give hon. Members who are not members of the Intelligence and Security Committee the opportunity to debate the functions of the security services.
A debate every five years would at least give the public a little more confidence in the work of the security services. At the moment such confidence is even lacking in the legitimate work of those services. The Government should improve parliamentary oversight by offering important definitions of the three terms included in my amendment.
I am sorry to note that during the passage of the Bill the Government have not accepted any amendments bar a minor one. They pushed the Bill through Committee and


presumably they will do likewise in another place. The Government should be more flexible and I hope that they will accept my modest amendment or, if not, will accept a similar one in another place.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Before I deal with the four amendments before the House, I should like to make some general observations that apply to those amendments, but are not particular to them.
When talking about the functions and the roles of the agencies, as we are in the context of the amendments, it is important to set the debate within the framework of the definitions and the checks and balances that are provided by the Bill and the general framework of the law. I would therefore like to remind the House of the framework within which the agencies operate.
To start with, clause 1 does two things. First, it defines the functions of the intelligence service and defines the circumstances in which those functions can be exercised. Secondly, in relation to interference with property or with wireless telegraphy, it provides circumstances in which applications must be made, for approval, to the Secretary of State—that is the warrant procedure. It further provides that acts that would be unlawful by reason of the Criminal Justice Act 1948—acts done abroad—can be rendered lawful only if they are authorised by the clause 7 authorisation procedure. It provides the mechanisms whereby complaints to the tribunal can be made. It sets up and establishes a commissioner whose function and role is to oversee the exercise by the Secretary of State of the clause 5 warranty and clause 7 authorisation procedures. It creates the oversight committee, the remit of which is set out in clause 10.
Equally importantly, all the functions of the agencies are regulated by the ordinary law of the country, save and to the extent that it might otherwise be relaxed, either by the terms of the Bill or—we are speaking also of the Security Service Act 1989—by some other ordinary operation of law.
That is the framework in which the agencies operate. I adopt what my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) said about the liability of members of the agency to the ordinary criminal law. If the members of the agencies do something that contravenes the ordinary criminal law—

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Without the authority of a warrant.

Mr. Hogg: I was going to make the point. Unless it is covered by one of the procedures that I have been referring to, they are liable to appear before an ordinary criminal court.

Mr. Rogers: The Minister sets out and displays a structure of accountability and checks and balances and he is putting it in that context, but—

Mr. Richard Shepherd: It is part of the Bill.

Mr. Rogers: It is absolutely true—it is part of the Bill and we are coming to it. All those procedures are in a tight ring of secrecy. The Secretary of State appoints the members; the Secretary of State screens the information; a report is made to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister. It is nonsense to suggest that those are accountable structures, especially to Parliament.

Mr. Hogg: I do not agree. To start with the last argument that I made, if an act contravenes the ordinary criminal law of the country the act complained of will be investigated by the police. They act independently. If, for example—[Interruption.] If it is warranted, it is covered by the clause 5 procedure, provided that the clause 5 procedure applies. The hon. Gentleman did not seem to focus on the fact that the clause 5 procedure applies only to cases involving entry to or interference with property or wireless telegraphy, and has nothing to do with the general points that he was making about murder and physical injury to individuals and so on. Insofar as those acts are done within the jurisdiction, they are criminal unless another defence applies, such as legitimate self-defence.
That is the general framework within which one operates. I shall now discuss the four amendments that the House is debating. Amendment No. 3 is designed to confine the competence of the intelligence service to circumstances where it can be said that there is a threat to national security. I believe that that is unduly restrictive and I would not commend it to the House. One of the functions of the intelligence service is to further and advance the national interest. Such a purpose can well exist even in the absence of a threat to national security. Let me illustrate that, because I hope that the House will be persuaded by the argument.
It is obviously in the country's interests to find out as much as we can about the military capacity of various countries or the terrorist capacity of various organisations. That interest might—probably does—exist even in the absence of a direct threat. We have every interest in trying to discover the attitude towards various policy issues of various Governments or organisations in the middle east, although one could not, in all honesty, say that there was a threat, or an obvious and direct threat, to the national interest.
7.45 pm
We have every interest in investigating proliferation—channels of proliferation; risks of proliferation; where arms come from; where they go to. One would often be pushed to say that that constituted a direct threat to the United Kingdom. We have every interest in trying to identify the stability of various Governments, friendly and unfriendly, and it will be difficult to say, in that context, that there will always be a risk to our national interest.
It is unduly restrictive to confine the competence of the intelligence service to those circumstances in which it can be said that there exists a threat to the national interest.

Mr. Rogers: I cannot follow the Minister's argument when he says that the Bill says that the function of the Secret Intelligence Service—I presume that the purpose of the Bill is to delineate the functions—is to further and advance the national interest. There is no mention of that in the Bill. It mentions "national security" in clause 1(2)(a) and then it speaks about
interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom".
However, for the Minister to justify his argument under a general term of national interest is to create another dimension in addition to national security.

Mr. Hogg: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman may not have been following the argument as closely as I might have wished him to do—or perhaps I am at fault. There is a difference between saying that competence exists only where there is a threat, and saying that competence exists


where the purpose of what is being done is to further the national interest. It is true that I have taken a broad phrase because otherwise I spend a lot of time summarising the meaning of sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) and, for the purposes of this discussion, I am subsuming (a), (b) and (c) into a general phrase.
The difficulty with amendment No. 3 is that it allows the intelligence service to act only when there is a threat, yet there are many circumstances in which I suspect that 80 or 90 per cent. of Members of the House—not that there are many Members here to make that assessment—would wish the intelligence service to act even if one could not, in honesty, say that there was a threat.

Mr. Cohen: The Minister has made an interesting statement and he has broadened the scope of national interest by saying that the intelligence service is furthering it. Will he say, for example, that the coup in which the British were involved, which brought down Mussadeq in Iran and put the Shah into power, was furthering the national interest? Also, who would have made that decision, according to the logic of the Minister's argument?

Mr. Hogg: Both sides agreed in Committee that we would not discuss specific cases or alleged incidents. The hon. Gentleman says that I am furthering, or at least developing, the responsibility of the intelligence service, but I assure him that I am not. Many times on Second Reading and in Committee I argued, as did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, that the purposes of the intelligence service include the furthering, the forwarding or whatever word one wishes to use, of the national interest, and that they are not confined to those circumstances in which there can be said to be a threat.
The second of the amendments relates to the question of economic well-being. The amendment contemplates—it was not spoken to in the debate, so I will be brief—that the word "substantially" should be placed in front of the phrase "economic well-being". That has real disadvantages and no counter-balancing advantages. In promoting that argument, I first return to the general constraints which I have mentioned and which I will not repeat now. Secondly, the intelligence service responds to tasking by the Joint Intelligence Committee. Thirdly, when resources are scarce there is a natural reluctance on the part of any agency to waste its time on trivial matters. The agency would be concerned only with matters of substance; it would not be concerned with trivial matters.
Such matters would include, for instance, the price and availability of commodities, financial and monetary policies of countries that might have an impact on the United Kingdom, activities of individuals abroad that might discredit financial institutions in the United Kingdom and, perhaps, the promotion of British economic interests abroad, in a variety of ways.

Mr. Chris Mullin: rose—

Mr. Hogg: I see that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) is becoming restless; I give way to him.

Mr. Mullin: The Minister may wish to consider another example which seems fairly prevalent. We have developed

a habit of spying on foreign companies that compete with British companies, and rewarding British companies with titbits of information picked up through GCHQ or elsewhere in return for unspecified favours. Is that justifiable?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is asking me to comment on allegations, which I will not do. The question is whether particular activities fall within the functions defined in clause 1, and the circumstances in which those functions can be exercised.

Mr. Mullin: rose—

Mr. Hogg: I will give way, but I shall not add to what I have just said.

Mr. Mullin: Will the Minister forget about specific examples and simply deal hypothetically with the example that I gave? Would such action be justifiable in the terms of the Bill?

Mr. Hogg: Come, come: the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that my general attitude is not to discuss hypothetical cases, save in the most general context. Although it might be fun to do that, I do not think that it would be a good way in which to spend the House's time.
I have described the type of circumstances in which economic well-being is an interest to be forwarded or protected. The question that then arises is whether the word "substantially" improves the Bill in any way. I do not believe that it does. The concept of what is and what is not substantial is, of course, subjective, and I do not see how it can add to the Bill—although it might make the lives of individual officers rather more difficult.
Moreover, many of the activities that I have described —which I suspect the House would regard as desirable —might not be said to have substantial significance when judged against the weight and size of the British economy. We would find ourselves precluding desirable activities that satisfied all other criteria because, in relation to the weight and size of the British economy, they could not be described as substantial.

Mr. Rogers: The Minister said that officers would be placed in a very difficult position. I understand that the joint intelligence machinery tasks MI6 to carry out the functions involved; surely it would be able to gauge whether certain activities were substantially in the country's economic interests. The purpose of the amendment is solely to tighten the rules on what the service can do and to ensure that it carries out what the Minister has rightly described as large-scale generic functions.

Mr. Hogg: That is not true, because we are talking about a subjective test—which, moreover, might not be fulfilled in any particular enterprise, because of the relationship between the economic activity being investigated and the overall size of the British economy. As there is a mismatch between the two, the test would not be satisfied—although most people would be pleased to support the objective.
Amendment No. 6—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Brownhills has spoken from time to time—is defective and should be rejected, although the Opposition Members who tabled it have tried to take account of some of the arguments that I advanced in Committee. First, if the amendment were passed, the`


intelligence service could not intervene in respect of threats or attacks against employees of British companies abroad who were not citizens of the United Kingdom. That is a bit peculiar. Secondly, we all have an interest in fighting terrorism, but in its present form the amendment would prevent us from intervening in—or assisting, for instance, the French Government in frustrating—an act of terrorism in France. I find that difficult to accept.
My hon. Friend the Whip has just entered the Chamber. I feel a little nervous when I see him; does he want me to stop? If so, I shall be brief.
My third objection is this. Crime is pretty international; there are many criminal acts in which we would want the intelligence service to become involved, but which do not have a direct or immediate impact on the United Kingdom or its citizens. Good examples are the smuggling of arms and drugs, child prostitution and international pornography: we have a legitimate interest in the investigation of each of those classes of crime, in the obtaining of information and, in many circumstances, attempting to interrupt them, but in many cases it would be impossible to say that their immediate consequence would be an impact on the United Kingdom or its citizens. They would therefore be outwith the provisions of the amendment.
Finally, let me comment on a point made by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Brownhills. [Interruption.] He did support it.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: My constituency is Aldridge-Brownhills.

Mr. Hogg: I am terribly sorry. I am out of practice: I should hear my hon. Friend speak more often.
What hon. Members are saying is basically this: "We cannot ourselves define the various concepts, but we want the Government to do it by way of an order-making power. Furthermore, we want to debate it every five years." That is the broad effect of the amendment.
I think that it is extremely difficult to define national security in statutory terms; incidentally, I think the same about economic well-being. My view is reinforced by what the Commissioner of the Security Services, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, said in his 1990 report. Effectively, he said that it was very difficult to define national security in statutory terms, although it could be recognised easily enough.
Labour has encountered the problem in the past. The sex and race discrimination legislation of the mid-1970s refers to national security without giving any definitions or amplifications, because it is so difficult to define. I therefore do not think that it would be at all easy to secure a comprehensive definition of those two phrases which would be satisfactory.
I accept that the position is rather different when it comes to serious crime, which can sometimes—and for some purposes—be defined. It was done in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, in—I think—the Interception of Communications Act 1985 and in other legislation. It should not be forgotten, however, that in this instance we would also have to consider crime committed abroad, because that comes within the definition. I do not think that it would serve a serious purpose; serious crime is easy enough to recognise, even if it is not defined.
Let me make two more points. First, I am against order-making powers and I am rather surprised that my

hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) is not against them as well. As hon. Members and my hon. Friend know full well, an order laid before the House is not subject to amendment—it has to be accepted all or not at all. Of course, that is just what the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) is anxious that we should not do in relation to Northern Ireland. The fact that a draft must be placed before the House and debated before the order is made is an attempt to mitigate the defects associated with the order-making procedure, but it does not solve it.

8 pm

Mr. Richard Shepherd: As I understand it, the Procedure Committee is at this moment reporting, or has already reported, on how orders may be made in other ways, but that was not my point. I was querying whether there are to be limitations. The remit outlined in the Bill is very large. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that the definitions to which he referred are extremely difficult and they have exercised minds considerably, which is why I come back to the issue of limitation—what the services may not do. This is a compendium Bill but security service legislation exists in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Limits can be imposed, which was the reason for my general support for the amendment. Lawful dissent was one of the issues that I raised but which my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister did not cover, although perhaps he is coming to it. What constitutes the foreign policy of the United Kingdom? Would Mr. William Cash and Sir Teddy Taylor be objects of interest to the services? Are their activities lawful dissent? Should they be limited under the Bill? As I understand it, if the Secretary of State, using his warrant, set out to seek information about them, the Bill would allow him to do so.

Mr. Hogg: There are various ways in which one can try to control the exercise of given powers by the agencies. We have tried a mixed approach by defining the powers and subjecting the exercise of powers to various controls. It was for that reason that I began with general observations, pointing out the definition of the powers and the circumstances in which they could be exercised, and went on to speak about the complaints procedure, the clause 5 and clause 7 procedures, the commissioner's role, the ordinary criminal law and the oversight committee. The Bill creates a range of controls, checks and balances which impact on the functions and the circumstances in which the functions are exercisable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills was concerned—at least, I thought that he was, although he was perhaps being more humorous than I realised—that his acts a propos the Maastricht Bill might fall within the scope of the intelligence service. He mentioned only the circumstances in which the functions were exercisable, but he will, of course, have been the first to note that the functions outlined in clause 1—the underpinning provisions—relate to
the actions or intentions of persons outside the British Islands".
Although I might wish on occasion that my hon. Friend was outside the British Isles, I have to say that he does not satisfy that criterion. Therefore, the circumstances do not even begin to apply in the case that he postulated because the functions do not exist in that case.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: The two Acts to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred are linked and I


accept what he said about accountability and various checks and balances, but the point is to assist Ministers' accountability and to identify responsibility—I believe that that must be at the heart of the Bill. Mr. Cash, or my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, was in Paris on Friday launching a new programme. In this small world, it is easy for British citizens to gather together quite ordinarily in, for example, Paris. I wanted to ensure that the Bill was not drafted in such a way that it could apply in that case, which is why I was querying its limitations.

Mr. Hogg: Looking at the smiling face of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) and the rather less smiling face of my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood), I am conscious of the fact that the House wishes to get on with its business.
I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills that, although there may be arguments against the Bill, his is not one of them. The suggestion that he and our hon. Friends will be chased by the intelligence service is not credible.

Mr. Rogers: I am afraid that the Minister has not dealt with the arguments in favour of the amendments. I reiterate the fact that we agree that the security and intelligence services must continue to be effective, but, as I said at the outset, that has to be set against the background of the application of the rule of law. The amendments are intended to focus the functions and capabilities of the intelligence services.
The Minister has refuted our arguments primarily by saying that the Bill contains a series of checks and balances. He said that there was a complaints procedure, a tribunal, a commission and an oversight committee so we need not worry about the functions that we give to the intelligent services. He said that it did not matter how broadly they were based because there were checks and balances. However, as we said in Committee ad nauseam, and as we shall continue to say, it is a completely closed circle.
Through the Joint Intelligence Committee, the Secretary of State tasks the secret services. If necessary, he issues the warrant for them to operate outside the law. They report to him, and he reports to the oversight committee and launders any information before doing so. The Prime Minister also has the function of filtering material and even the heads of the secret services have the right to scrutinise material before it goes to the oversight committee. If the Minister thinks that that is an effective check and balance against the functions set out in clause 1, I am afraid that he is living in cloud cuckoo land.
It is no good the Minister saying, as he did whenever he was challenged on specific examples—by, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)—that history begins tomorrow and never mind what happened in the past. We have seen how the services operated in the past and we now have the opportunity to make the necessary changes in the Bill. Why not make those changes now so that there would be no need for orders? The Bill could have been drafted more sensibly.
We have always said that clause 1 was ambiguous, which is why we tabled reasonable amendments. The Minister cannot get away with saying that we do not need to accept the word "substantially" because the secret

intelligence services would not be interested in trivia. Why not? Because they do not have the money. Presumably, if they did have the money, they would be interested in trivia. However, they should not have the right to interfere except where it is "substantially" in the interests of Great Britain's economy or general well-being.
The Minister said that drug smuggling and child pornography, among other things, do not have a
serious effect on law and order",
to cite amendment No. 6. I am afraid that the Minister is wrong because organised crime is funded largely from drug smuggling and drug peddling. There are many ancillaries to organised crime which fund these activities and which have a serious effect on law and order in the United Kingdom.
These are appropriate amendments and they properly introduce the concept of natural justice into the Bill. For that reason, we shall press them to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 123, Noes 272.

Division No. 222]
[8.08 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Hall, Mike


Ainger, Nick
Hanson, David


Ashton, Joe
Hinchliffe, David


Austin-Walker, John
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Barnes, Harry
Home Robertson, John


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Hoon, Geoffrey


Bell, Stuart
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Bennett, Andrew F.
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Benton, Joe
Johnston, Sir Russell


Bermingham, Gerald
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Boyes, Roland
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Bradley, Keith
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Burden, Richard
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Callaghan, Jim
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Kilfoyle, Peter


Canavan, Dennis
Kirkwood, Archy


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Lewis, Terry


Clapham, Michael
Llwyd, Elfyn


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Coffey, Ann
Mackinlay, Andrew


Cohen, Harry
McMaster, Gordon


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
McWilliam, John


Cox, Tom
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Mandelson, Peter


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Marek, Dr John


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Dafis, Cynog
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Darling, Alistair
Maxton, John


Davidson, Ian
Michael, Alun


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Dewar, Donald
Morley, Elliot


Dixon, Don
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Dowd, Jim
Mudie, George


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Mullin, Chris


Eastham, Ken
O'Brien, Michael (N W"kshire)


Enright, Derek
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Etherington, Bill
Parry, Robert


Flynn, Paul
Patchett, Terry


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Pickthall, Colin


Fraser, John
Pike, Peter L.


Galloway, George
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Gerrard, Neil
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Raynsford, Nick


Godsiff, Roger
Redmond, Martin


Gordon, Mildred
Reid, Dr John


Graham, Thomas
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Rogers, Allan


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Rowlands, Ted


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Sedgemore, Brian


Gunnell, John
Sheerman, Barry






Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wallace, James


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Warded, Gareth (Gower)


Simpson, Alan
Wareing, Robert N


Skinner, Dennis
Wicks, Malcolm


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Snape, Peter
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Soley, Clive



Spellar, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Steinberg, Gerry
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Stott, Roger
Mr. John Cummings.


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Dover, Den


Alexander, Richard
Duncan, Alan


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Amess, David
Eggar, Tim


Arbuthnot, James
Elletson, Harold


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Ashby, David
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Aspinwall, Jack
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Atkins, Robert
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Evennett, David


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Faber, David


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Fabricant, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Baldry, Tony
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Batiste, Spencer
Fishburn, Dudley


Beggs, Roy
Forman, Nigel


Bellingham, Henry
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Forth, Eric


Body, Sir Richard
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Booth, Hartley
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Boswell, Tim
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bowden, Andrew
French, Douglas


Bowis, John
Fry, Sir Peter


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gallie, Phil


Brandreth, Gyles
Gardiner, Sir George


Brazier, Julian
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bright, Graham
Garnier, Edward


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gill, Christopher


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Gillan, Cheryl


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Budgen, Nicholas
Gorst, John


Burns, Simon
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Burt, Alistair
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Butcher, John
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Butler, Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Carrington, Matthew
Hague, William


Carttiss, Michael
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Cash, William
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Chapman, Sydney
Hampson, Dr Keith


Churchill, Mr
Hanley, Jeremy


Clappison, James
Hannam, Sir John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Harris, David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hawkins, Nick


Coe, Sebastian
Hawksley, Warren


Congdon, David
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Conway, Derek
Hendry, Charles


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For"st)
Hicks, Robert


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Couchman, James
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Cran, James
Horam, John


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Day, Stephen
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Devlin, Tim
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Dorrell, Stephen
Hunter, Andrew


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas





Jack, Michael
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jenkin, Bernard
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jessel, Toby
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Sackville, Tom


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Kilfedder, Sir James
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knapman, Roger
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir"m E'st"n)
Shersby, Michael


Knox, Sir David
Sims, Roger


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Legg, Barry
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Leigh, Edward
Soames, Nicholas


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Speed, Sir Keith


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lidington, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lightbown, David
Spink, Dr Robert


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spring, Richard


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Sproat, Iain


Lord, Michael
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Luff, Peter
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Steen, Anthony


MacKay, Andrew
Stephen, Michael


Maclean, David
Stern, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stewart, Allan


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Streeter, Gary


Madel, Sir David
Sweeney, Walter


Maitland, Lady Olga
Sykes, John


Malone, Gerald
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mans, Keith
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marland, Paul
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Marlow, Tony
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Thomason, Roy


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mates, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


Merchant, Piers
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mills, Iain
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tracey, Richard


Moate, Sir Roger
Trend, Michael


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Twinn, Dr Ian


Monro, Sir Hector
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Viggers, Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Nelson, Anthony
Walden, George


Neubert, Sir Michael
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Waller, Gary


Nicholls, Patrick
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waterson, Nigel


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Watts, John


Norris, Steve
Wells, Bowen


Ottaway, Richard
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Page, Richard
Whitney, Ray


Paice, James
Whittingdale, John


Patnick, Irvine
Widdecombe, Ann


Patten, Rt Hon John
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Pawsey, James
Willetts, David


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f"ld)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Yeo, Tim


Redwood, Rt Hon John



Richards, Rod
Tellers for the Noes:


Robathan, Andrew
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 5

WARRANTS: GENERAL

Mrs. Bridget Prentice: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 3, line 47, leave out
'issued by the Secretary of State under this section'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 33, in page 4, line 10, after 'Act', insert
'in so far as they relate solely to the protection of national security and the economic well-being of the United Kingdom'.
No. 34, in page 4, line 12, after 'above', insert
'which are exercised in pursuance of the objectives mentioned in subsection 2(a) and (b) of that section'.
No. 35, in page 4, line 14, after 'above', insert
'which are exercised in pursuance of the objectives mentioned in section 3(2)(a) and (b) above'.
No. 36, in page 4, line 22, at end insert—
'() A judge of the High Court or Court of Session may, on an application made by the Security Service, the Intelligence Service or GCHQ, issue a warrant under this section authorising the taking, subject to subsection (3) below, of such action as is specified in the warrant in respect of any property so specified or in respect of wireless telegraphy so specified if he—

(a) thinks it necessary for the action to be taken on the ground that it is likely to be of substantial value in assisting, as the case may be,—

(i) the Security Service in carrying out any of its functions under the 1989 Act in so far as they relate solely to the prevention and detection of serious crime, or
(ii) the Intelligence Service in carrying out any of its functions under section 1 above which are exercised in pursuance of the objectives mentioned in subsection (2)(c) of that section; or
(iii) GCHQ in carrying out any function which falls within section 3(1)(a) above which are exercised in pursuance of the objectives mentioned in section 3(2)(c) above; and

(b) is satisfied that what the action seeks to achieve cannot reasonably be achieved by other means; and
(c) is satisfied that satisfactory arrangements are in force under section 2(2)(a) of the 1989 Act (duties of the Director-General of the Security Service), section 2(2)(a) above or section 4(2)(a) above with respect to the disclosure of information obtained by virtue of this section and that any information obtained under the warrant will be subject to those arrangements.'.

No. 18, in clause 6, page 4, line 40, leave out from beginning to end of line 9 on page 5 and insert—

'(1) A warrant shall, unless renewed, cease to have effect at the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which it was issued.
(2) An application for a warrant from a court shall be heard ex parte.
(3) If at any time the Security Service, the Intelligence Service or GCHQ is satisfied that the action authorised by the warrant is no longer necessary it shall apply to the Court or the Secretary of State as appropriate for the warrant to be cancelled'.

Mrs. Prentice: Clause 5 provides for the Secretary of State to issue—on an application by the Security Service, Secret Intelligence Service or GCHQ—warrants authorising action in respect of property or wireless telegraphy. We believe that it is not appropriate for the Secretary of State to be the arbiter in the issuing of warrants.
I served as a magistrate in Inner London for many years, and was called upon from time to time by the Metropolitan police to issue search warrants. Such requests were made in court or at my own home, sometimes late at night. There have been occasions when the validity of warrants signed by magistrates has been called into question.
The rules were changed to ensure that warrants authorised by magistrates are properly signed and record the correct time to ensure that the police or others do not misuse that procedure. That is done not just to protect the person against whom the warrant is issued but to safeguard the prosecution. There is nothing worse than for a case to fail because a warrant was not properly signed or other technicalities were not correctly observed. I have great sympathy with anyone who is required to sign a warrant and to ensure that it is fully justified.
The suggestion that the Secretary of State should sign warrants causes me concern. That Minister is involved in the activities of the security services, so cannot be considered independent of them, and an adequate check on the warrant is essential. In constitutional terms, any Secretary of State—and this is a non-party political point —is part of the Executive in the same way as the Security Service.
In criminal cases, warrants are generally authorised by a magistrate before a search of someone's house is lawful. Often, that authorisation is done in open court. It is rare, rightly, for a warrant to be authorised elsewhere. Right hon. and hon. Members and people outside might think that a judge is not necessarily the best person to authorise a warrant, because it is too sensitive a task; that judges have their own views of society and may be prejudiced by them. However, there are examples of the courts being charged with dealing with matters of secrecy reasonably well. The judge in the Matrix Churchill case was able to examine sensitive material and to ensure that it was properly adjudicated.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: There may be some misunderstanding. I have carefully examined the amendments, and it is clear that they relate only to those applications that are founded on the serious crime category, and that it is only in respect of that category that it is suggested by the amendments that the warrant should be issued by a judge. They do not relate to the other two classes.

Mrs. Prentice: I am trying to make the point, in relation to the principle behind the issuing of warrants, that it is questionable whether a politician who is part of the Executive is necessarily the appropriate person to make warrants available.

Mr. Rogers: The Minister is not following the amendments properly. Amendment No. 36 seeks to insert a new subsection at the end of clause 5, which relates to
the prevention of detection of serious crime.
That is the generic clause covering the issuing of warrants. Amendment No. 15 seeks to delete from clause 5(1) the words
issued by the Secretary of State under this section.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to be tiresome because we can always debate the principle, but the amendments relate only to applications in respect of serious crime. I am prepared to debate the generality, but I am faced with a narrow class of amendments and it would be a pity if there were any misunderstanding.

Mr. Rogers: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I accept that we—like the Government, normally —can get the drafting wrong, but amendment No. 36—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman raising a point of order for me?

Mr. Rogers: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Unfortunately, I allowed the hon. Gentleman to continue a debate across the Floor of the House with the Minister. If the hon. Gentleman has a point of order, he must make it now, to the Chair.

Mr. Rogers: My purpose is to bring the debate in order, because the Minister suggested that our amendments apply only to a particular aspect of the Bill. My point of order is that our amendments do not relate solely to clause 5(3) —which begins,
A warrant authorising the taking of action in support of the prevention or detection of serious crime"—
but to the end of clause 5, where we seek to insert a new subsection beginning:
A judge of the High Court or Court of Session".
As amendment No. 15 seeks to delete from clause 5(1) the words
issued by the Secretary of State under this section",
it was necessary to introduce later in clause 5 the provision for a warrant to be issued by a High Court or Court of Session judge.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate has been in order so far. I would have intervened if it had strayed out of order.

Mrs. Prentice: I am not entirely sure whether the House now knows exactly where it stands.

One of the fundamental principles of human rights is respect for the rule of law, and I am concerned that that principle should be set out in the Bill. It was argued in Committee that if someone objected to the issuing of a warrant, he could go to a tribunal. Unfortunately, that does not satisfy the fundamental human rights with which I am concerned. It is important that the individual is aware before a tribunal is involved that he can challenge what is happening. Once he appears before a tribunal, the warrant has been issued and the telephone tapping or other surveillance has taken place. At that stage it is difficult to put things right.
If we allow the Secretary of State to issue warrants to authorise various actions, we shall fall short of the provisions set out in article 6 of the European convention on human rights. If we are signatories to the convention, we should make some attempt to go along with its provisions. As I have said, the courts are capable of dealing with matters of secrecy.
Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends say that the judges are political in a sense and may make decisions accordingly. Indeed, they have made some incredibly bad decisions. A Labour Government would entrench human rights; they would introduce a Bill of Rights. I would like to see a written constitution to entrench the rights of individual citizens. The judges would have to comply with it, and that would make a great difference. I look to the future to see that system apply rather than the present one.
If we leave appeal until the time when the tribunal is involved, there is no possible redress. That means that the complainant will have no access to information and will not know why he is in some way threatening national security. The tribunal can decide only whether the service has reasonable grounds for its actions. There will not be an adequate check on the Secretary of State when it comes to the decision to issue a warrant. That is why we feel that going before a High Court judge and ensuring that

decisions are made in open court will protect the individual citizen as well as protecting the security services by ensuring that they have proper means whereby they can continue with acts that would otherwise be illegal.
We are talking of acts that would be unlawful without the support of a warrant. That is crucial to our consideration of these matters. If we allow people to participate in unlawful acts for the very best of reasons —national security—we must be sure that they do so under the strictest provisions. It is for these reasons that I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I do not know whether the amendments are correctly drawn and I am happy to accept the advice of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State on that matter. All the matters that we are considering can be corrected when the Bill returns to the other place. My right hon. and learned Friend can give an undertaking that they will be addressed there.
It is unthinkable that warrants should not be issued and authorised by a judge. That is the first principle. It is outrageous to think that a Minister should himself determine what should be lawful and by his own warrant attest that that which is unlawful is lawful. The structural problem is that essentially a Minister's acccountability is to himself. There should be judicial determination.
This is a land of laws. The history of England and the United Kingdom is built on those laws, and in those laws we find our defence. Judicial intervention is proper and appropriate.
We talk about the security of individuals and whether they are to be trusted. The very people who we regard dubiously today may be Ministers of the Crown tomorrow. The man on the Opposition Benches who we suspect may be the very Foreign Secretary who issues the warrants that we are discussing. We must not be so suspicious of ourselves internally that we exclude a great democracy. After all, these systems are designed to defend our democracy.
Part of our democracy and defence is through the courts, where there is an independent judiciary. That is why it is entirely respectable to argue that there should be judicial intervention and that warrants should be issued on the authority of a justice of this land, commissioned by the Queen, due process and so on. If that is not the position, everything in the Bill will be at the behest of the Government of the day alone.
As things stand, the Government appoint everyone in the system. They appoint the commissioner and they appoint the committee of parliamentarians. I do not, of course, want to give the impression that these matters are related. I recognise that they work in their own way, but they do not reinforce accountability and identify responsibility. That is why it is important that these processes should be open to the courts. It may be that the courts will find a way of entering the arena, but the relevant provisions are closely drafted. I would like to think that such a distinguished lawyer as my right hon. and learned Friend would appreciate the merits of the courts.
I understand that there are difficulties, one of which is Matrix Churchill. Judges seem to be far too independent and sometimes rather inquiring. But that is what we want them to be, and that is their function. If we cannot trust the judges, who do we trust in this system? We need a balance. Not everything should be in the hands of the Executive and of one-party government. That is why we talk about


accountable government. It is important to recognise the judicial tradition. As I have said, this is a land of laws, and within those laws we find our freedoms.
I know that my right hon. and learned Friend will appreciate what I am saying. I am sure that he has charged people for giving similar advice in his time. I hope that he will accept the spirit behind the amendments and ensure that in the other place—no less a place—there is recognition of the validity of the argument.

Mr. Cohen: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice). There should be judicial authorisation when it comes to the issuing of warrants.
It was reported in The Guardian on 1 April—I hope that it was not an April Fool's joke—that the Home Secretary had authorised 883 telephone tapping warrants and that the Secretary of State for Scotland had issued 112. Apparently, the Home Secretary had authorised 105 mail openings and the Secretary of State for Scotland had authorised one. The article did not tell us what the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland had authorised in respect of mail openings or telephone tapping. There was no attempt to present the broad numbers. It would be useful for the House to have that information. It would also be useful to know whether the warrants related to one person or whether one warrant related to many people. Such information would be worth having. Was there judicial authorisation for any of the warrants to which I have
referred or were they all issued purely on ministerial decisions?
The warrant system is a mess. We must bear in mind the opportunity to gather information about people and retain it under the Data Protection Act 1984. The Lindop committee reported that data protection problems posed even greater problems than the systems that are maintained by the police. It recommended that
any exemption provided…in the interests of national security should be strictly circumscribed
and that
any necessary exemption should be granted personally by the Home Secretary.
It was suggested that we should apply the best practice from abroad, and those practices involved the judiciary. Instead we got section 27 of the Data Protection Act which enabled an exemption on national security grounds. As a result, the security services can collect information on people without the need for warrants that apply in other Acts such as the Interception of Communications Act 1985 and the Security Service Act 1989.
We have three methods of obtaining information and they all have different aspects. The security services may not like a Minister's decision. A Minister may not wish to sign a warrant. For example, the President of the Board of Trade said that he did not want to sign the public interest immunity certificate in relation to the Matrix Churchill employees. A Minister may think that there is not a good enough reason for telephone tapping or whatever. The security services can take the same action under another guise, and can do so retrospectively. They can collect the information, then get the Minister to sign a certificate under section 27 of the Data Protection Act. They can say that it was all authorised retrospectively. That cannot be done under the other Acts.
The issuing of warrants for the collection of information should be brought together under one system. That system

should have judicial involvement, as has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East and by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). That is the purpose of the amendment. The Minister should address that, otherwise the system is a free-for-all and the security services can do what they like. The structure of oversight referred to earlier is meaningless in that context.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I invite the Opposition not to press the amendment to a Division because I assure them that it is defective and that the only provision for judicial review of the warrant procedure relates to the serious crime category. However, I am prepared to debate the general principle, if that is in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The real question before the House is whether in the three categories the warrants should be issued by the Secretary of State or by a judge. I strongly urge the House to accept that the warrants should be issued by a judge —[Interruption.] Forgive me, I mean the Secretary of State. I was thinking of a suitable compliment to pay my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). The warrant should be issued by the Secretary of State.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills made an impassioned speech in favour of judicial intervention. He fails to grasp fully that this is not a judicial process. It is not a judicial process because the concepts are administrative and policy based and are not judicial. One can see if one looks at the categories involved—they can be found in clause 1(2)(a), (b) and (c)—that they are policy issues. There are the interests of national security with regard to defence and foreign policy and the interests of economic well-being. Those two categories are clearly policy issues. A judge is in no way qualified to determine policy issues of that sort.
Hon. Members might say that judges are competent to consider questions of serious crime. Yes, they are. But, serious crime contemplated by this Bill extends abroad. The process envisaged in the one amendment that bites is not really a judicial process. It is an ex parte application without any consideration of the arguments or of the person who will be affected by the warrant. The amendment simply calls for a question of policy to be judged by a judge who does not have any experience in the policy areas and does not have the opportunity of hearing the person who will be affected by the warrant. It is an administrative and executive process, not a judicial process.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Is not the argument self serving? The House is trying to obtain proper definitions by which the judge can measure whether a warrant is appropriate. The Minister rejected proper definitions and then said that it would not be appropriate precisely because he has rejected the proper definitions. That is what I call a self-serving argument. One can get round that by properly defining the limiting clauses for which we have argued before. The judge could then intervene.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend does less justice to his case than he should. The problem is one of concepts, not of definition. It is not a judicial issue. National security with reference to defence and foreign policy and economic well-being are not judicial issues.

Mr. Rogers: The issue of a warrant is a judicial process. The issue of a warrant allows someone to act outside the law. The general principles of the functions and abilities of the secret intelligence services are not in question. We are asking someone to act in a judicial capacity by issuing a warrant to allow someone to operate outside the law.

Mr. Hogg: The issue of a warrant is sometimes a judicial process and sometimes it is not. Many warrants are issued in ways other than through a judge or a magistrate. The point relates not to the issue of the warrant but to the circumstances in which the warrant can properly be issued. That is a question of policy and is not a judicial issue.

Mr. Rogers: rose—

Mr. Hogg: I want to finish this.
A judge who is asked to issue a warrant has to be satisfied that it is in the interests of national security with regard to defence and foreign policy or in the interests of economic well-being. I have appeared before many judges during my life and very few, if any, have either the competence or expertise to deal with such matters of policy. That is not a criticism, but a statement of fact. There would be a submission made to them by officials with responsibility, drawing attention to policy issues. However, those issues are wholly outside the framework of practice and experience of judges.
Checks and balances are provided in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills may shake his head, but that is the case. For example, the Secretary of State is mightily constrained and the commissioner oversees what happens. Under the amendment, in so far as it bites at all, there is no review, no appeal, no subsequent comment and no right of representation. If one is talking about checks and balances and the preservation of human liberties, one does better under the Bill than under the amendment.

Mr. Rogers: I would happily accept the Minister's admonition that we should withdraw the amendment if I could understand why we should. I still think that our amendments are valid. I hear what he says about amendment No.36 relating only to the prevention and detection of serious crime; it does stipulate that a warrant should be issued
subject to subsection (3) below",
which relates to serious crime. That is not to say that the whole amendment is invalid.
I could not follow the Minister's general answer at all. He says that the issuing of warrants is not a judicial act. But the general terms and circumstances under which the secret intelligence services can operate are surely encapsulated in clause 1, and we cannot ask the Secretary of State to issue warrants to allow the services to act in quasi-executive way. The whole point of a warrant is to allow intelligence operators to act outside the law in pursuance of the provisions of clause 1.
As warrant issuing is indeed a judicial act, I cannot see why judges, not the Secretary of State, should not be allowed to issue them. The purpose of the amendments is to break the circle. The secret services are tasked by the Joint Intelligence Committee and the Secretary of State, who will then give them a warrant—in the Government's submission—to act outside the law. The services in turn report back to the same machinery of government and there is thus no true accountability.
If a High Court judge is involved in at least this one process, as the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said, an element of democracy will be introduced to the process. That is why we shall press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 271.

Division No. 223]
[8.51 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov"try NE)
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Armstrong, Hilary
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Kilfoyle, Peter


Austin-Walker, John
Kirkwood, Archy


Barnes, Harry
Lewis, Terry


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Bell, Stuart
Llwyd, Elfyn


Bennett, Andrew F.
Loyden, Eddie


Benton, Joe
Lynne, Ms Liz


Bermingham, Gerald
Macdonald, Calum


Boyes, Roland
Mackinlay, Andrew


Burden, Richard
McMaster, Gordon


Caborn, Richard
McWilliam, John


Callaghan, Jim
Madden, Max


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Mahon, Alice


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Mandelson, Peter


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Clapham, Michael
Maxton, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Michael, Alun


Cohen, Harry
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Connarty, Michael
Mudie, George


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Mullin, Chris


Corston, Ms Jean
O'Brien, Michael (N W"kshire)


Cousins, Jim
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Cox, Tom
Parry, Robert


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Patchett, Terry


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Pickthall, Colin


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Pike, Peter L.


Dafis, Cynog
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Darling, Alistair
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Davidson, Ian
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Primarolo, Dawn


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Randall, Stuart


Dewar, Donald
Raynsford, Nick


Dixon, Don
Redmond, Martin


Dowd, Jim
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Eastham, Ken
Rogers, Allan


Enright, Derek
Rowlands, Ted


Etherington, Bill
Ruddock, Joan


Faulds, Andrew
Sheerman, Barry


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Foster, Don (Bath)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Fraser, John
Simpson, Alan


Fyfe, Maria
Skinner, Dennis


Garrett, John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Gerrard, Neil
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Spearing, Nigel


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Spellar, John


Godsiff, Roger
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Gordon, Mildred
Stott, Roger


Graham, Thomas
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Wallace, James


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Wareing, Robert N


Gunnell, John
Watson, Mike


Hall, Mike
Wicks, Malcolm


Hanson, David
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Hinchliffe, David
Winnick, David


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Wise, Audrey


Home Robertson, John
Worthington, Tony


Hoon, Geoffrey
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)



Hoyle, Doug
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mr. John Cummings and


Janner, Greville
Mr. Eric Illsley.

Noes


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Fabricant, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Fishburn, Dudley


Amess, David
Forman, Nigel


Arbuthnot, James
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Forth, Eric


Ashby, David
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Aspinwall, Jack
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Atkinson, David (Bour"mouth E)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
French, Douglas


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Fry, Sir Peter


Baldry, Tony
Gallie, Phil


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Gardiner, Sir George


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Batiste, Spencer
Garnier, Edward


Beggs, Roy
Gill, Christopher


Bellingham, Henry
Gillan, Cheryl


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Body, Sir Richard
Gorst, John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Booth, Hartley
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Boswell, Tim
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bowden, Andrew
Grylls, Sir Michael


Bowis, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Hague, William


Brandreth, Gyles
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Brazier, Julian
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hanley, Jeremy


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hannam, Sir John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Budgen, Nicholas
Harris, David


Burns, Simon
Hawkins, Nick


Burt, Alistair
Hawksley, Warren


Butcher, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Butler, Peter
Hendry, Charles


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hicks, Robert


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Carrington, Matthew
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Cash, William
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Churchill, Mr
Horam, John


Clappison, James
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Coe, Sebastian
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Congdon, David
Hunter, Andrew


Conway, Derek
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For"st)
Jack, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jenkin, Bernard


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jessel, Toby


Cormack, Patrick
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Couchman, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cran, James
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Kilfedder, Sir James


Davis, David (Boothferry)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Day, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Knapman, Roger


Devlin, Tim
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knox, Sir David


Dover, Den
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Duncan, Alan
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Legg, Barry


Durant, Sir Anthony
Leigh, Edward


Eggar, Tim
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Elletson, Harold
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lidington, David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lightbown, David


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lord, Michael


Evennett, David
Luff, Peter


Faber, David
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas





MacKay, Andrew
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Maclean, David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Soames, Nicholas


Madel, Sir David
Speed, Sir Keith


Maitland, Lady Olga
Spencer, Sir Derek


Malone, Gerald
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mans, Keith
Spink, Dr Robert


Marland, Paul
Spring, Richard


Marlow, Tony
Sproat, Iain


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Steen, Anthony


Mates, Michael
Stephen, Michael


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Stern, Michael


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stewart, Allan


Merchant, Piers
Streeter, Gary


Mills, Iain
Sweeney, Walter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Sykes, John


Moate, Sir Roger
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Monro, Sir Hector
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Moss, Malcolm
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Thomason, Roy


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nicholls, Patrick
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thurnham, Peter


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Norris, Steve
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Ottaway, Richard
Tracey, Richard


Page, Richard
Trend, Michael


Paice, James
Twinn, Dr Ian


Patnick, Irvine
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Patten, Rt Hon John
Viggers, Peter


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Walden, George


Pawsey, James
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Waller, Gary


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Rathbone, Tim
Watts, John


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wells, Bowen


Richards, Rod
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Robathan, Andrew
Whitney, Ray


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Whittingdale, John


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Widdecombe, Ann


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Willetts, David


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Sackville, Tom
Wolfson, Mark


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Wood, Timothy


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Yeo, Tim


Shaw, David (Dover)



Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Tellers for the Noes:


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Shersby, Michael
Mr. Robert G. Hughes.


Sims, Roger

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 10

THE INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY COMMITTEE

Amendment proposed: No. 31, in page 7, line 37, leave out from beginning to 'the' in line 38 and insert—
'(a) who shall be drawn both from the members of the
House of Commons and from the members of.—[Mr.
Douglas Hogg.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendment No. 32.

Dr. Gilbert: I wish merely to draw attention to the fact that we need not have had this amendment and amendment No. 32 on Report. Even before the Bill came to this House,


Ministers' attention was drawn to the folly of requiring that one of the quorum be a Member of the House of Commons or, by implication, of the House of Lords. However, the Government took absolutely no notice. An amendment that we had prepared could have been accepted in Committee. I regret that the Government have taken so long to come to their senses.
I felt that I must draw attention to something that is indicative of the way in which the Government have dealt with the Bill. Of course I welcome the amendments, but they should not have been necessary.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Mandelson: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 8, line 1, leave out lines 1 to 13 and insert—

'(5) The Committee shall make an annual report on the discharge of their functions and shall lay a copy before each House of Parliament together with a statement as to whether any matter has been excluded from that copy in pursuance of subsection (6) below.
(6) If it appears to the Committee, after consultation with the Director-General of the Security Service, the Chief of the Intelligence Service or the Director of GCHQ, as appropriate, that the publication of any matter in a report would be prejudicial to national security, the Committee shall exclude that matter from the copy of the report as laid before each House of Parliament but shall send a copy of the full report to the Prime Minister without any matters being excluded.
(7) In the event of disagreement between the Committee and the Director-General of the Security Service, the Chief of the Intelligence Service or the Director of GCHQ, as appropriate, as to the matters which should be excluded for the Committee's report, that dispute shall be resolved by the Prime Minister.
(8) Any matters not in the annual report as a result of subsection (6) above shall instead be included in a report by the Committee to the Prime Minister.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 29, in clause 3, page 13, line 17, at end insert—
'(5) The Committee may request the assistance of staff from among such Crown servants (as defined in section 12 of the Official Secrets Act 1989) as the Secretary of State may think fit, or members of the Department of the Clerk of the House of Commons, provided that any person who assists the Committee shall be notified that he is subject to the provisions of subsection 1(1) of the Official Secrets Act 1989.'.
No. 25, in page 13, line 36, at end insert—
'or because the Secretary of State is satisfied that disclosure to the members of the Committee is unlikely to damage national security'.
No. 26, in page 14, line 2, after '4.', insert '-(1)'.
No. 27, in page 14, line 12, at end add
'5. The Committee shall have all the powers of the House of Commons to obtain papers, information and documents and to compel the attendance of witnesses and to compel them to answer questions.'.
No. 28, in page 14, line 12, at end add—
'(2) No information will be regarded as sensitive—

(a) if that information is already in the public domain or available to all those whose access to it would damage national security; or
(b) unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that disclosure to the members of the Committee is likely to damage national security.'.

Mr. Mandelson: The amendments concern the running of the Intelligence and Security Committee which is created by the Bill.
Amendment No. 22 concerns the method of reporting of the committee, and I wish to return to that and dwell on it at greater length. Amendment No. 29 concerns the committee's staffing, No. 25 provides a tighter definition of the circumstances in which the Secretary of State might direct information to be made available to the committee,

and No. 28 clarifies and provides a greater definition of the category of sensitive information which may be supplied to the committee.
I would not have thought that amendments Nos 25, 28 and 29 would be controversial or contentious in view of the previous commitment made by the Minister to lavish sensitive material and highly classified information on the committee. The amendments simply wish to bear out that commitment to lavishness, although they provide a slight test of whether the Minister wishes and intends to be true to his word.
Amendment No. 20, however, involves a slightly more serious test of the Government's true attitude to the important committee which is being established by the Bill, and of the good faith with which the Government are approaching the committee's role and status—a matter to which we attach considerable importance. The effect of the amendment would be to oblige the committee to lay its annual report on the discharge of its functions before Parliament, rather than simply submitting its report directly to the Prime Minister as the Bill provides for at the moment.
Our justification for making the change is threefold. First, we think that it is important to make clear that the authority for the committee's oversight responsibility is derived from Parliament and that that is borne out by its reporting directly back to its parent, which is Parliament. The committee is an important extension of the scrutiny role of Parliament, and not simply an instrument of the executive role of Government. It is the voice of Parliament, not an extension of the Prime Minister's office. That would be made all the clearer by making the committee submit its annual report to Parliament, rather than via the Prime Minister.
Secondly, we think that it is important that everything possible is done to engage the sincere interest of the House of Commons in the important oversight function of the committee. It is important to gain a commitment to the work of the committee from the House of Commons, and the change that we are proposing would have some considerable symbolic value in achieving that.
Thirdly, although we acknowledge that the committee's powers are circumscribed, it is nonetheless important for the committee to exercise some control over the timing of its report, even though the Prime Minister's veto remains in some form over the contents of the report. As presently drafted, the Intelligence and Security Committee does not have the right to publish its own report, let alone any power to determine the timing of the publication of the report. The Opposition think that that is surely wrong.
It certainly looks absurd that a committee of parliamentarians—with all the authority and importance of the role that is being invested in that committee by the Bill —should not even have the power to publish its annual report and to determine the timing of it.
One need only imagine the circumstances in which an annual report is made containing certain matters and references which are politically unattractive to the Prime Minister. They may be uncongenial or unpalatable at the time of elections, whether local elections, by-elections, European elections or even leadership elections.
One can imagine all sorts of elections that the Prime Minister might face in which he did not care to have a potentially controversial report by the committee published. It would be up to him under the terms of the Bill as it is currently drafted to put off and put off the


publication of the committee's report until a time that was more acceptable and satisfactory from his point of view rather than the point of view of the committee or, indeed, the needs of Parliament. In our view, that is wrong.
The amendment deals with an important point of principle. It is the principle of ownership of the committee, which we believe should be located, and seen to be located, clearly among Members of Parliament. The amendment has nothing to do with the separate argument about the powers and status of the committee and its access to information. All those separate matters will be covered by other amendments.
Amendment No. 22 is important because it touches on the image of this important commttee. It touches on the committee's standing with the public. It is important that the public see the committee as capable of exercising its oversight powers independently of the Executive. For the committee to make its report to the Prime Minister rather than to Parliament involves negative connotations in the eyes of the public and denotes a lack of independence which is wrong for the presentation of the committee. Such a lack of independence affects the committee's credibility with the public and other Members of Parliament. It also affects its authority vis-a-vis the security and intelligence services.
The committee's standing with the public, credibility with other parliamentarians and authority vis-a-vis the intelligence services are all in doubt. They have yet to be established. They remain fragile. The Minister may argue that the change proposed in the amendment is gratuitous or unnecessary, and has been tabled only to satisfy the over-zealousness or ego of parliamentarians. He would be wrong to make that judgment.
The Minister—perhaps not the Minister personally, but Ministers as a general breed—does not realise the extent to which the jury is still out on the robustness and effectiveness of the committee and its oversight role. Many people have reserved judgment on the committee, and are waiting to see whether it will turn into a tiger or a pawn. Therefore, it is important at this stage to make some symbolic gestures that demonstrate the committee's independence and its link with the oversight and accountability functions of Parliament, rather than tie it so closely to the Prime Minister.
The way in which the committee is perceived and judged inside and outside Parliament is important. It will be greatly affected by amendment No. 22 and other amendments that affect its running, its access to information and its independence. To modify the Bill so that the committee continues to work closely with and alongside the Prime Minister but clearly embodies the principle of answerability to the House would be a powerful symbol. It would considerably strengthen the aims and goals of the Bill to which we subscribe.
It is important for the Joint Intelligence Committee to work closely with the Government and the Prime Minister. We understood that and accommodated it in the amendment. As we have consistently acknowledged, it is important for the operational integrity of the services to be paramount. We readily accept that no one has a greater personal duty to safeguard their operational integrity than the Prime Minister. It is therefore understandable and right

for him to be personally involved in the publication of the committee's report. He should do so in the way prescribed in our amendment, however, and not as set out in the Bill.
The agencies should be protected from any unwitting operational disclosure in the committee's report. To that end, our amendment proposes two powerful safeguards to ensure that no unwitting disclosure takes place.

First, we propose that the JIC should consider its draft in consultation with the agency heads before finalising the report that it makes to Parliament. The agency heads should be given that opportunity to give appropriate advice to the committee on the contents of the report so that we can ensure—certainly, to the committee's satisfaction—that nothing contained in it unwittingly discloses anything or refers to something that would endanger our national security or any operational source available to the intelligence services.
The second safeguard, which is equally important, is that the Prime Minister should conduct any desirable or necessary arbitration between the heads of the agencies and members of the committee. The Prime Minister should resolve any disagreement—although it is unlikely—between agency heads and committee members about a matter that the committee might want to refer to in its report but the agency does not want it to include. The amendment provides for that. Any matter excluded would be reported in camera to the Prime Minister.
When we discussed those matters in Committee, the Minister cast considerable doubt on the safeguards. While doing so, he also recognised the strength and intellectual respectability of our case and was kind enough to acknowledge that we had a powerful argument for the committee reporting directly to Parliament rather than via the Prime Minister.
Whether for his sake, or for that of other people in the Administration—I am not sure for whom he was batting on the issue—he chose to point to some defective drafting. In my experience of the Bill in Standing Committee, and of the Minister, drafting is very much in the eye of the beholder. If one has a mind to do so, it is easy to pick holes and pull threads in almost anything, which is what the Minister did during our discussions of these matters in Committee. He alighted on the criteria that we would use for excising material and matters that it would not be right to include in the final report. The Minister drew a distinction between the drafting of the provisions currently in the Bill and the drafting of the Opposition's amendments. He pointed to what he believed was a preferable formulation and said—I will paraphrase the terms of the Bill—that matters which are prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions of either of the services should be excised. The Minister thought that this was infinitely preferable to the criterion set out in the Opposition's amendment—that material which is thought to be prejudicial to national security should be excised.
The Minister has drawn that distinction, but there is not a great deal of difference between the provisions of the Bill and the Opposition's amendment. I think that the Minister is indulging in semantics. It is pretty all-encompassing to talk of something being "prejudicial to national security". I would not have thought that anyone would have too much difficulty, after a five-minute discussion, in coming to an agreement on the basis of that broad criterion. Yet the Minister chose to describe the criterion as overly narrow.
I think that his argument was very thin. He was grasping at straws, or any pretext that he could lay his hands on, in attempting to support his argument and oppose the change that we put forward. If he is worried about the protection of intelligence sources—as he seemed to be at the time —I ask him what conceivable point there would be in the Intelligence and Security Committee identifying a source, deliberately or unwittingly.
If it identified a source unwittingly, when it was quickly pointed out to the committee by the head of the agencies or others that there was a risk that an intelligence source might be compromised, it would be almost inconceivable for the committee, despite that advice, to persist in its pursuit of a matter which might compromise in any way either the operational integrity of the service or an important source which is available to the intelligence service.

Dr. Gilbert: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. Is it not perfectly clear that, if the committee were so obtuse or perverse as to follow the line that he puts forward as a theoretical possibility, it would very quickly find that it would receive absolutely no information, and that would be the end of the committee?

Mr. Mandelson: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. When a committee of this kind is set up, one invests heavily in the common sense, judgment and trustworthiness of the people appointed to the committee. If one cannot invest in those very important commodities, one would be very ill advised to set up the committee in the first place.
I remind the Minister that it is the Prime Minister who is placing the trust of Parliament and the nation in the people who are selected to serve on the committee. It is the Prime Minister who determines the membership of the committee. If, at the next moment, he starts treating them as children, not only will it be insulting to the people he has appointed to the committee, but it will say a great deal about his judgment in appointing them in the first place.
The amendment aims to strengthen the committee's parliamentary status and respectability without compromising the agencies' operational capability in any way. In doing so, it will ensure that the process of oversight commands greater public confidence. I think it is very important to us all that it be established and strengthened.
Reporting directly to Parliament rather than via the Prime Minister may be a symbolic difference, but it is extremely important to demonstrate that we believe that strengthening ties to Parliament is more important than deepening the Intelligence and Security Committee's subservience to the Prime Minister.
In Committee, the Minister acknowledged that the Opposition were making a respectable, intellectual argument. One senior Government source went further—I do not know whether he was speaking while he was within or outside the ring of secrecy, or whether I was inside or outside of it with him at the time, so I will not identify him. He remarked to me in Committee that this matter was not something on which the Government would go to the wall if people felt that it was important to make a symbolic but no less important gesture in establishing the committee's independence and proper functioning in relation to Parliament.
I say to the Minister that people inside and outside the House do think that this is important. Those of us who care

about the credibility and standing of the committee therefore think that it is important. Reporting to Parliament rather than to the Prime Minister, albeit with the Prime Minister's stamp firmly on the committee's report, represents the right balance to strike. I hope that our amendment will be supported, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I choose to speak to amendments Nos. 27 and 28 and I reject amendment No. 25 on the basis that it is craven, and because my rejection better emphasises that.
The House will remember well that, as recently as five years ago, the idea of such an oversight committee was anathema to the Government. It was thought that the entire national security would fall apart if anyone other than the Secretary of State, or those officially within the circle of secrecy in Government, were to determine security matters. It was absolutely verboten and the very suggestion that there should be any form of committee that could remotely consider the security services was too horrendous to consider. We tried the idea of Privy Councillors being on such a committee and ran routes around the House and so on, but the suggestion was too shocking. I do not think that I am saying anything more than what was, even then, not a secret when I say that the Government were alarmed.
In the course of those five years, the Government have travelled a long way and one should commend them for that. They have travelled that distance because we now have a more liberal Administration and because people have reflected on what they want the Intelligence and Security Committee to do. I understand why my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State does not want to address the history of the 1970s and 1980s, but that history was such that many in the House, and those who had informed discussions outside, were nervous about whether the security services were focused or under control. Concern was expressed about the policy towards the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Cathy Massiter and others and therefore the Government moved to legalise the internal security services and make them subject to a statutory authority. They had previously rejected oversight on the basis that such matters were so intimate to the very nature and survival of everything that Britain stands for that the system would fall apart if it were subject to such oversight.
The purpose of the ISC is to attest to the general public —us, here in the Commons in one sense and the wider public outside—that the internal security services are run ethically and are not directed against honest and honourable citizens. It is designed to prove that the service is not a malign institution. It is a wholly honourable thing for the Government to want to demonstrate that in a wider focus. If they did not want to demonstrate that, why would they bother to have a committee? They could see off those of us who worry and are jittery about the integrity of such services. The majesty of Government could maintain the position that there was no need for anyone to consider the internal security services.
We need, the public needs, a committee in which we can invest trust. We need one that can assure us about the facts that touch upon the very nature of our democracy but not, of course, by detailing and delineating the actual circumstances of cases. The Committee stage of Bills such as this used to be taken on the Floor of the House, so that


any Member who had an interest, or an interest on behalf of his constituents, could speak in more detail to amendments.
The committee is supposed to attest to you and to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this internal security authority is working in accordance with law and appropriately. How can it do that if it is prevented from examining information that gives the entire history, tracing dead cases?
I shall say this because I think that our obsessive secrecy undercuts the authority of Government. How can the committee, with the best will in the world, say, "We think that warrants are proportionate"? The Minister will say, "Oh, that is not the important function of the committee. That will be done by the commissioner or by others." That is not the case, because this will the only organisation for which we shall understand the character of the people appointed. After all, those people will be appointed from those who have been in our midst over the years. That is the purpose of parliamentary government, after all. We shall be able to form a judgment on the character of those individuals. That is why the parliamentary system is often advanced as a good one. We know the weight and the worthiness of the individuals that are there, so that we can trust them when they attest to us, "I cannot tell you the details, but I assure you that that is proper and ethical."

That is what the Government want and what the House
wants and I suspect that it is what the generality of the public want. Therefore, if one is investing in people whom one knows—the appointment is in the gift of the Prime Minister in the end—one must allow them to consider all that one would expect them to be able to consider, such as papers, information and documents, and to compel the attendance of witnesses if necessary. That would be a much more consensual thing, but the statute should set out firmly, "This committee is entitled to look at everything." That will give us the necessary confidence in it.
The purpose of our security service arrangements—the Bill, in a sense—is to give us all an opportunity to reinforce the most important concept that we slip away from in the House, ministerial accountability. Ministers come from among us. They come from the general election among us. They are meant to be our friends, our instrument by which we govern our society. Of course that is wildly fanciful, but I subscribe to the bonny traditions of our House and it was the old tradition and view. I am a Jeffersonian democrat in those terms. I do not believe in prerogatives and I am glad that the Government have put that on a statutory basis. It was inappropriate before.
The purpose of our system, with the checks and balances and so on, is to reinforce the doctrine. I cannot trace, and I do not think that anyone has ever been able to trace in any of the debates that we have had, where authority lies. Where are the checks and balances? Who is responsible for monitoring, overseeing and attesting that all is well ethically, is properly run and is run in accordance with the law? Where is the officer who carries out the oversight function?
The Foreign Secretary is now engaged almost permanently in a dialogue about Europe, plus the security dimension. He is the Secretary of State, in theory, issuing those warrants, no less, keeping an eye on what those people are doing. He has the commissioner to do it, but his

greatest allies are his colleagues from the Parliament of the United Kingdom, who are also considering those matters. I think that it will be a heavy job.
I honour those who will take on the responsibility of being members of that oversight committee because, if they take their tasks seriously, if they are to give authority to that committee, they will have to be individuals whom we trust, whose character we know and can weigh. We must not have old toadies of Government or former Ministers who have been through the routine and have become so grand, vaunted up with privy councillorships on their way to the House of Lords, and who are good and noble bodies who have inflicted much damage on our national life during the ordinary course of their business as ordinary Ministers. No; we want people of spirit. That must be right. This is a land of spirit.
First, that will reinforce accountability. It will help the Minister to do his duty to the House. Secondly, it will give the confidence that was lacking in parts of the 1980s. We have said it before and I think that everyone agrees here. Those are essentially honourable, not covert, services. Those are not shabby little individuals who run around trying to undermine the integrity and authority of our institution. They are honourable public servants who are trying to do, as we try to do, their best for our society.
In the muddle of the Bill, I think that it is a worthy amendment—I take amendment 27 at random. I know that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is generous in such matters, so perhaps he could assure an even better interpretation of the Bill, ready for the House of Lords, so that it can come back here and we can give it a cheer.

Mr. Winnick: I must tell the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) that, although it is quite likely that he does not wish to serve on the committee, his chances of doing so if he did so wish are probably very remote. If I may hazard a guess, I think that —unfortunately—those nominated from among the Tories will be those whom the Government consider safest, and least likely to cause any trouble.
The amendments deal with the crux of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) rightly said that, to a large extent, the credibility of the committee is at stake. Those of us who have campaigned for genuine parliamentary scrutiny over the years have always taken the view that at some stage we will succeed: in 1986, I said in a speech that the time would come when the Government of the day accepted the necessity for some scrutiny of the intelligence services. So far, the Government's response has always been that such scrutiny is unnecessary. When the issue has been raised in Adjournment debates and on other occasions, Ministers have always told me that, because of ministerial control, there is no need for concern or for the establishment of any such committee.
I do not think that the Bill gives the impression that there will be genuine parliamentary scrutiny. The committee will report to the Prime Minister; I assume that it will be serviced by the Cabinet Office. The Parliamentary Secretary nods. Such a committee would appear to be virtually a sub-committee of the Cabinet Office, although it would include parliamentarians. That may not be the Government's wish, and it may not happen in practice. However, it would be important because it would not only give the impression of genuine parliamentary scrutiny but to ensure that it takes place.


That is why I think that a Select Committee should be set up, although.I accept that the Government are not going to establish one at this stage.
Why not accept the amendments? Why should not the committee report to Parliament rather than to the Prime Minister? It should be the servant of Parliament: is it going to be the servant of the Prime Minister? That is the real issue. What sort of committee are we discussing—a committee that is answerable only to the Prime Minister, as the Bill suggests, or a committee that is answerable to the House of Commons?
As I have said before, if other western democracies are willing to provide for genuine parliamentary scrutiny, why is not the British Parliament—the oldest in the world—prepared to do the same? Why should it be thought that Members of Parliament cannot be trusted? Why should it be felt that we are not in a position to decide on such sensitive matters—which, indeed, has always been the argument against establishing a committee in the first place?
Amendment No. 27 states:
'The Committee shall have … powers … to obtain papers, information and documents".
That, too, is an important amendment. Will the committee have the authority to obtain those papers, information and documents, so that it can carry out the job for which I hope it is being set up? If the Government continue to take the view that the committee should be denied such powers —I fear that they will—it will inevitably be felt that it is not a genuine committee.
I am not in a position to know the views of those who are directly involved in the security services. They may have no particular view one way or the other, or they may agree with the broad aspects of the Bill. However, there is at least a possibility that some, at any rate, believe that if there is to be parliamentary scrutiny it should go the whole hog—that is not a deliberate pun on the Minister's name!—or, certainly, much of the way. They may believe that a genuine committee should be established, if not a Select Committee. A committee with the powers suggested in the amendments may inspire more confidence in those involved in the security services.
For those reasons, I believe that the Government should be far more flexible and far more willing to accept that Members of Parliament appointed to the committee can do the job. They should not adopt an attitude that suggests —as my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool rightly said—that they are dealing with children. For so many years, the Government refused to accept any form of parliamentary scrutiny, but why stop here? Why not go a little further and establish a committee in which the House can have confidence and whose members realise that they are servants of the House and are not accountable only to the Prime Minister?

Mr. Allason: Amendment No. 27 deals with the committee's right to obtain information and documents and would grant the committee the power to call individual officers to give evidence before it. I have some reservations about the latter provision, but it is immensely important that the committee has the right to call for information and documents. I draw the House's attention to amendment No. 1 which deals with what should happen to any such documents.
A public declassification procedure is long overdue in this country, and I see no reason why we should not have

one, especially in view of the American experience, which has been entirely successful. For example, earlier this year, the CIA issued a publication on the Cuban missile crisis. Members of the oversight committee should be allowed to call for documents, even those of an historic nature, to enable them to get the complete background to particular events.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) explained, the British have a curious attitude towards secrecy, which can be encapsulated in the difference between the British and American approaches. The American approach is that, if any document has been generated with taxpayers' money, the taxpayer is entitled to see that document at some stage. If the Government object on grounds of national security, there is a straightforward procedure to follow—an independent judge can be persuaded of the case and he can prevent declassification—but, under any other circumstances, the citizen has the right to see documents after a given period.
It is curious that GCHQ, MI5 and the SIS are exempt from the Public Records Act 1958. None of their documents go to the Public Record Office; that organisational designation alone on the documents' circulation list will be enough to prevent them from going there. The American approach is that the citizen has a right to see documents. It is a tremendous discipline for public servants because they know that there will be disclosure at some stage and that their advice will be revealed. The British approach is that Ministers must be allowed to receive completely independent advice from their civil servants and that the civil servants should never be held to account at the bar of public opinion. I know which of the two options I believe is healthier for democracy, for the public and for confidence in those agencies. There is a dramatic difference between the two.
Amendment No.1 would allow all documents—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Amendment No. 1 is not included in this group. Indeed, it was not selected at all.

Mr. Allason: I am grateful for it, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am speaking to amendment No. 27, which would allow members of the committee to call for documents. If it were accepted, they would be empowered to call for documents of the type that I have described which, under my amendment, would have gone to the PRO. It would have got the Government off a hook on which they have recently impaled themselves. Fifty years ago, in the run-up to D-day, it would have been possible to release all the relevant documents. They would have shown that, while there is a proper place for commemoration, there is also a great deal to celebrate in the remarkable military achievement of 6 June 1944. I accordingly urge the House to accept amendment No. 27.

Dr. Gilbert: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) on his extremely eloquent remarks on this group of amendments. I subscribe to everything that he said, especially about the need for the committee's reports to be published properly after they have been scrutinised and accepted by the Prime Minister. I realise that there is nothing in the group of amendments that specifically relates to that idea, but I hope that I shall not stretch your tolerance too far, Dame Janet, if I invite the Minister, when he replies, at least to acknowledge that in


the normal course of events the country and the House could expect the reports to be published within, say, two months of being submitted to the Prime Minister. I realise that there could be abnormal circumstances—a general election could intervene, for example—but it would be helpful to everybody if the Minister gave an assurance about what would happen in the normal course of events.

I strongly endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool said about amendment No.27—about the powers of the oversight committee. We discussed those at some length in Committee, but it is as well to give the whole House the chance to hear the arguments. My recollection is that when we diwpssed those matters in Committee the only defence that th6 Minister of State gave for his resistance to the Opposition amendments was that the powers were not needed, because virtually everybody would be awfully happy and would want to come along and give evidence to the committee anyway. If I do the Minister an injustice or traduce him, it is open to him to tell the House now that he has other arguments, but that is the only argument that I can remember him having offered in Committee.
Earlier today the Minister gave us a list of all the areas into which the committee might find itself being drawn: drug smuggling, child pornography, violence and serious crime are apparently all to come within its purview. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman really intend to stand up at the Dispatch Box and say again that he expects everyone whom the committee will want to have as a witness to come willingly? I cannot believe that he will try to advance such a preposterous argument to the House. It is clearly necessary for the committee to have some powers.
It is bad enough that the committee will not have the power to put witnesses on oath and that, unlike witnesses before Select Committees, its witnesses will not be at risk of being in contempt of the House. But witnesses will not even have to come at all. If they feel like it, they will be able to laugh at any invitation from the committee. I cannot see how it can be in the Government's interests to produce a committee with no powers of that sort, so that thoroughly unscrupulous people will be able to mock an invitation to appear before it.
Presumably the Government and the Prime Minister want the committee to be treated seriously, as a body of some status and dignity, but unless it is given some powers I am afraid that not only will the Government's assurances ring hollow but the whole business will not do the Prime Minister's reputation any good.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The debate has focused mainly on amendments Nos. 22 and 27, dealing with the report to Parliament and the powers of the committee, so I shall speak to those two amendments.
The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) made a powerful case for reporting to Parliament. I understand it, and it is a perfectly respectable case. The question is where the balance of advantage lies. I seek to persuade the House that it lies with the formulation set out in the Bill as drafted at present.
Essentially, I shall make three points. First, the amendments do not achieve any substantial or substantive

beneficial effect. Secondly, they are incompatible with the nature of the committee as contemplated within the Bill. Thirdly—these are drafting points, but of some substance —the amendments have within them some undesirable elements.
Do the amendments achieve anything of real substance? Under the Bill, Parliament will receive a full report through the Prime Minister, who will have the power to make excisions—but Parliament will receive a full report. That is the purpose of the hon. Gentleman's amendment. We are debating a difference in the modalities, not in the end result. I understand the argument about enhancing the status of the committee but do not agree with it. The end result—the presentation to Parliament of a report—would happen either way.

Mr. Mandelson: The Minister misses the point. If Parliament receives a report from an independent committee drawn from its own Members, who have exercised a full oversight function, Parliament will attach considerable weight to its contents. If Parliament receives a report from the Prime Minister, that imprimatur will give the report its character and status—which will consequently be lower in the eyes of Parliament and the public.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman reinforces my view that we are discussing modalities rather than strategic objectives. We have the same objective—that Parliament should receive a comprehensive report. We are arguing between ourselves as to whether or not that report goes via the Prime Minister. I do not think that that matter is of enormous principle.
Is it logical to adopt the approach taken in the Bill or that proposed in the amendment? The plain truth is that the committee is sui generis. Its members are appointed by the Prime Minister—it is not a Select Committee—who is responsible to the House for intelligence and security. It is logical that the committee should report to him, for he appointed it and is accountable for the policies in respect of which it exercises oversight for the House. It is more logical to follow our route than that of the hon. Member for Hartlepool.
I want to make a number of drafting points. I do not pretend that they are all overwhelming but their cumulative effect is considerable. The amendment makes no provision for ad hoc reports, and I am sure that we all agree that they are desirable. Also, the amendment provides—at least in the first instance—for the decision as to what should be or can be excised to be discussed between the committee and the agencies. I find it odd that the agencies should have a role in determining what should be excised, bearing in mind the fact that they are overseen by the committee. I am uncomfortable about that mismatch.
The hon. Member for Hartlepool is wrong to reject the Bill's provision for excisions when the material is prejudicial to the workings of the agencies—or words to that effect. The hon. Gentleman wants a test of national security. That is interesting, when one considers the remarks of the right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert). It would be difficult to say that the disclosure, for example, of the identity of a source would automatically be prejudicial to national security, whereas it almost always would be to the functioning of the agencies. The hon. Member for Hartlepool could have put that right in his amendment but chose not to do so, so he must be judged on his own drafting.

Mr. Mandelson: Surely the Minister accepts that such information would be prejudicial both to national security and to the exercise of the agencies' functions? In that case, it is never likely to come within a mile of appearing in anything so much as an early draft of a report, let alone in the final version.

Mr. Hogg: I do not agree. It might be, but it would not necessarily be so. Take the example of a source that relates to drug trafficking abroad. I do not believe that identifying such a source would, in the generality of cases, be prejudicial to national security but it would almost always be prejudicial to the proper working of the agencies, because they would not obtain any information in future. That distinction is another argument against the hon. Gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Mandelson: Given the terms of the amendment, does the Minister accept that that is precisely the sort of advice that could and would be offered to the committee by the heads of the agencies concerned? They would say, "By including a certain matter in the draft report the committee unwittingly risks revealing the identity of an important source. Could you not do this?" The committee would immediately accept that. That is why the first safeguard appears in the amendment.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The criterion for excising material in the amendment is that matters are prejudicial to national security. That test cannot be satisfied in the example that I have given, and that is why I gave it.
The right hon. Member for Dudley, East asked about time. I cannot confirm that the period would be two months but I can certainly say that it is something that needs to be done quickly and within a reasonable time. In any event, the committee will be able to embarrass the Prime Minister of the day by stating that it has laid its report before him and is looking forward with anticipation to its presentation to Parliament. I cannot give a guarantee on two months, and I shall not do so.

Dr. Gilbert: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made an extremely helpful point. Are we to take it that it will not be treated as a breach of confidence if the committee discloses the date on which it submitted a report to the Prime Minister?

Mr. Hogg: I cannot think that that difficulty will arise.
I move on to persons and papers. There is a case to be made but in the end there is a difference between our concepts and those of Opposition Members. In effect, Opposition Members are trying to create a Select Committee. We are against that. They are seeking to cloak the committee that we are establishing with all the powers of a Select Committee. I am against that. I believe that the committee that we have created has been given adequate powers to perform its oversight functions. Opposition Members want to give it an unfettered right to call for persons and papers. In Committee, I described the obligations of the heads of agencies and, for that matter, the officers of the services. We need not go over that ground again. In the generality of cases, the information or the personnel will come before the committee subject to the authority of the head of the agency and the terms of schedule 3.

Mr. Mandelson: I wish to clarify what the Minister has just said. He said that the right to call people to the

committee will extend to the heads of the agencies and to personnel working within the agencies. Will it extend also to personnel and officials working elsewhere in the Government machine?

Mr. Hogg: I can conceive of many or some circumstances in which the committee would wish to see persons working within Government Departments outside the agencies. There are restrictions that will necessarily apply. The consent of the Secretary of State will be necessary. The Secretary of State, or perhaps the permanent secretary in each Department, would have to give consent. That is inevitable. Indeed, that applies to Select Committees. There are also the restrictions that are set out in schedule 3 concerning sensitive information and the like. I would expect those criteria also to be respected.

Mr. Mandelson: Answer the question.

Mr. Hogg: I am trying to do so.
Subject to the consent of the Minister, who would have to justify his refusal to the House, and subject to a proper respecting of the protections provided in schedule 3, there may be circumstances—I admit that I am using weasel words but I am trying to be careful—in which officials from other Departments would come before the committee. In other words, it could happen but it will not always happen.

Mr. Rogers: Is the Minister saying that the Government or a Government will allow information to come forward if something is potentially embarrassing to them politically but does not impinge upon national security? History proves that, if information is likely to prove embarrassing for a Government, they will not allow it to come through.

Mr. Hogg: I think that I have answered the question fully. If there is a request by the committee to see officials and that request is declined, Ministers may have to explain why they have declined the request. The House of Commons is increasingly intrusive in those matters—and a jolly good thing too.
One should remember that the Bill and other legislation provides for restrictions on the information that can be made available to the committee. It is foolish to pretend otherwise. The problem with the persons and papers powers in the amendments—particularly amendment No. 22—is that they do not respect those restrictions or other statutory restrictions.

Mr. Winnick: If the committee decides, as it may do in certain circumstances, that it wants a particular witness to come before it, who could be from outside the Government service and that that witness is essential—

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Intelligence Services Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Question agreed to.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Winnick: If a witness refuses to accept a summons to appear before a Select Committee, it can come to the House for authority to summon him. Will the Minister give


a pledge that the proposed committee will be able to ask for such authority and that the Government will give that support?

Mr. Hogg: No, I cannot give that pledge and the issue does not arise. The hon. Gentleman is referring to the power of a Select Committee conferred on it by the authority of the House. The Standing Orders of the House contain no provision to give such a power to the proposed committee, which is not a Select Committee, and there is no such provision in the Bill.
I suspect that, in most cases, people who are outside the Government machine and who have information will wish to give that information and will, therefore, come before the committee. In reply to thuestion whether the committee has the power to that, the answer is no.

Dr. Gilbert: Nothing in the Bill says that the committee may not make the request. The committee may not get very far, so the Minister cannot rely on that. I should be interested to hear his answer to this point. He said that the power is not contained in the Bill. That is what is wrong with the Bill and that is what we are complaining about. We are still waiting to hear the reason. My hon. Friends and I would be amenable to hearing any reason from him other than that most people will come anyway. Why does he think that Select Committees need the power, whereas this committee does not?

Mr. Hogg: I have given the reason why I do not think that the committee requires the power, although the right hon. Gentleman may not agree with it. It is not a Select Committee of the House. We need to be chary about the powers that the House gives to committees that are not Select Committees. The Bill provides—and I think that the House accepts this—that there need to be restrictions on the classes of information that the committee is entitled to require to be delivered to it. That goes for information and for papers. A range of statutes, including the Official Secrets Act 1911, bite on people's ability to give evidence or provide information. The amendment's provisions on persons and papers, and the concept behind it, take no account of restrictions in the Bill and no account of the Official Secrets Act. It is objectionable for that reason.

Mr. Rogers: The answer that the Minister gave my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) is not good enough. As my right hon. Friend said, the Minister has not given a substantial reason for refusing the amendment. For that reason, we shall press it to a vote.

Dr. Gilbert: Is it not perfectly clear that the Minister has told the House that the committee is not going to be a Select Committee? We all know that, and we do not need him to tell us it again. He has also said that the House should be chary of giving such powers to an outside committee, which I accept.
Will my hon. Friend try to extract from the Minister his view of the difference between the functions of this committee and the functions of a Select Committee? It seems to me that the committee will perform virtually all the functions of a Select Committee—except that it will not have the same powers. It will certainly do Select Committee work.

Mr. Rogers: As my right hon. Friend knows, during the Committee stage of the Bill it was impossible, I am afraid, to extract any reasonable answers from the Minister. I do not suppose that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is about to reform this evening. I am quite prepared to allow him to intervene if he wants to volunteer, but I doubt whether he will. Meanwhile we shall press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 88, Noes 267.

Division No. 224]
[10.05 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Lewis, Terry


Barnes, Harry
Llwyd, Elfyn


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Loyden, Eddie


Blunkett, David
Lynne, Ms Liz


Boyes, Roland
Macdonald, Calum


Burden, Richard
McFall, John


Byers, Stephen
Mackinlay, Andrew


Caborn, Richard
McWilliam, John


Callaghan, Jim
Madden, Max


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Mahon, Alice


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Mandelson, Peter


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Maxton, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Michael, Alun


Cohen, Harry
Milburn, Alan


Connarty, Michael
Miller, Andrew


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Mullin, Chris


Corbyn, Jeremy
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Cousins, Jim
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Cox, Tom
Pike, Peter L.


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Davidson, Ian
Randall, Stuart


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Raynsford, Nick


Dixon, Don
Redmond, Martin


Dowd, Jim
Reid, Dr John


Eastham, Ken
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Etherington, Bill
Rogers, Allan


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Rowlands, Ted


Foster, Don (Bath)
Short, Clare


Fyfe, Maria
Simpson, Alan


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Skinner, Dennis


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Graham, Thomas
Spearing, Nigel


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Wareing, Robert N


Gunnell, John
Wicks, Malcolm


Hanson, David
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Harvey, Nick
Winnick, David


Hinchliffe, David
Wise, Audrey


Home Robertson, John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)



Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Kilfoyle, Peter
Mr. Gordon McMaster.

NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Alexander, Richard
Beggs, Roy


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bellingham, Henry


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Amess, David
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Arbuthnot, James
Body, Sir Richard


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Booth, Hartley


Ashby, David
Boswell, Tim


Aspinwall, Jack
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Atkins, Robert
Bowden, Andrew


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Bowis, John


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Brandreth, Gyles


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Brazier, Julian


Baldry, Tony
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)






Browning, Mrs. Angela
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Budgen, Nicholas
Hendry, Charles


Burns, Simon
Hicks, Robert


Burt, Alistair
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Butcher, John
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Butler, Peter
Horam, John


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Carttiss, Michael
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cash, William
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Chapman, Sydney
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Churchill, Mr
Hunter, Andrew


Clappison, James
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jack, Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Jenkin, Bernard


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Jessel, Toby


Coe, Sebastian
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Congdon, David
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Conway, Derek
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Kilfedder, Sir James


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Knapman, Roger


Cormack, Patrick
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Couchman, James
Knox, Sir David


Cran, James
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Legg, Barry


Day, Stephen
Leigh, Edward


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Devlin, Tim
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lidington, David


Dover, Den
Lightbown, David


Duncan, Alan
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lord, Michael


Eggar, Tim
Luff, Peter


Elletson, Harold
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Maclean, David


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Madel, Sir David


Faber, David
Maitland, Lady Olga


Fabricant, Michael
Malone, Gerald


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Mandelson, Peter


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Marland, Paul


Fishburn, Dudley
Marlow, Tony


Forman, Nigel
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Forth, Eric
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Mates, Michael


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


French, Douglas
Merchant, Piers


Fry, Sir Peter
Mills, Iain


Gallie, Phil
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gardiner, Sir George
Moate, Sir Roger


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Garnier, Edward
Monro, Sir Hector


Gill, Christopher
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gillan, Cheryl
Moss, Malcolm


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Nelson, Anthony


Gorst, John
Neubert, Sir Michael


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Nicholls, Patrick


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Norris, Steve


Hague, William
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Ottaway, Richard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Page, Richard


Hanley, Jeremy
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hannam, Sir John
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hargreaves, Andrew
Pawsey, James


Harris, David
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hawkins, Nick
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hawksley, Warren
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael





Rathbone, Tim
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Thomason, Roy


Richards, Rod
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Robathan, Andrew
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Thurnham, Peter


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Tracey, Richard


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Trend, Michael


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sackville, Tom
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Viggers, Peter


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Shaw, David (Dover)
Walden, George


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Waller, Gary


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shersby, Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Sims, Roger
Watts, John


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wells, Bowen


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Soames, Nicholas
Whitney, Ray


Speed, Sir Keith
Whittingdale, John


Spencer, Sir Derek
Widdecombe, Ann


Spink, Dr Robert
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Spring, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Sproat, Iain
Willetts, David


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Steen, Anthony
Wolfson, Mark


Stephen, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Stern, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Streeter, Gary



Sweeney, Walter
Tellers for the Noes:


Sykes, John
Mr. Irvine Patnick and


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule 1

INVESTIGATION OF COMPLAINTS

Mr. Rogers: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 10, line 20, after 'State', insert—
'7A. The Tribunal shall submit details of every determination made by it, its reasons for the determination and the relevant background papers to the Intelligence and Security Committee.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 24, in page 11, line 4, at end insert—
'. Where it is possible for the Tribunal to give reasons for its determination to the complainant without damaging national security it shall do so.'.

Mr. Rogers: The amendments relate to the tribunal and the oversight committee. [Interruption.] It is very difficult to hear oneself speak because of all of the noise from the Government Front Bench and the racket from the Back Benches.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the conversation is confined to the Front Benches. The hon. Gentleman's point is well taken.

Mr. Rogers: I am glad that some Government Members have been able to have an enjoyable evening; they look all the better for it.
The reason for the amendments is to enable the Committee, as we have described in the last group of amendments in relation to clause 10, to consider the


workings of the two services. For it to do so, it must know what complaints have been made and how they have been dealt with by the tribunal.
The vast majority of complaints to the current security service tribunal appear to be unjustified. Indeed, since the commission was set up and the tribunals have been in operation, the number of complaints is in the low 40s. None of those has been accepted by the commissioner, even for investigation, without being related to the tribunal in any way.
Therefore, it is important that the tribunal reports to the oversight committee to see whether any complaints are justified. Of course, that information will be helpful for the committee to carry out its work, and the committee would also need the power to call for information from the tribunal. During the debate on the previous group of amendments, we talked about the power of the committee to compel witnesses to appear before it and order people to provide information for it. The Government would not accept that. Within the closed circle of secrecy that the Government are creating, surely there is no harm or difficulty in the tribunal reporting to the scrutiny committee. It is within the circle of secrecy that the Minister is so anxious to maintain and would not affect national security in any way.
Amendment No. 24 is extremely important. It deals with whether the tribunal should give reasons for its determination to complainants so long as national security is not involved. The amendment seeks to give the complainant greater rights to natural justice. The tribunal would have to give some details to the complainant.
The procedure envisaged in the Bill is completely secretive. Everything is done by post. There is no hearing. Once complainants have made a complaint, they receive a letter saying that the case is being investigated. A few months later they receive another letter saying that no determination has been made in their favour. That is the pattern that has prevailed under the Security Service Act 1989. No information is given about what has happened in the intervening period, who has been investigated and who has been interviewed. The complainant has no access to any information, even if the disclosure of the information would not affect national security.
Without access to any of the results of the tribunal's investigation, the complainant is in an impossible position and cannot argue his or her case properly. Therefore, the so-called remedy is of little value. In some cases, it will not be possible to reveal any information, but in many cases it will be possible. As we have said, we support most of the provisions of the Bill because we believe that we have to have a secret intelligence service and it has to be allowed to carry out its job properly. However, the procedures laid down in the Bill do not comply with safeguards contained in article 6 of the European convention on human rights.
In addition to the failure to provide any information on the allegations that may have justified surveillance, as we have seen the tribunal can determine only whether the service had reasonable grounds for its actions. It cannot consider the correctness of the service's decision that any particular action or surveillance was justified.
Since the 1989 Act set up the tribunal for the security service, no complaint has ever been upheld by the tribunal. That shows that the model for what is envisaged in the Bill

not only has an imperfect record but does little to further the interests of natural justice. We believe that the amendments are extremely important in the general structure of the Bill. Therefore, we shall press them to a vote.

Mr. David Davis: May I begin by correcting something that I am sure the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) did not intend to put on the record. He said that of the 40 complaints none was investigated. I think that he meant that there were no determinations in favour of the complainants. All the complaints were investigated. As I said in Committee, although the commissioner has the right not to investigate if he judges a complaint to be vexatious, he has investigated every complaint put to him.
I cannot commend the amendments to the House. Both have been discussed previously in another place and in Committee. As I explained in Committee, amendment No. 23 would increase the access of the oversight committee to information and by so doing would risk confusing and overlapping its functions with those of the tribunal.
The legislation is framed in a way which ensures that there is a proper, independent and effective form of redress for complainants. That is what is important and what the tribunal is for. The oversight committee's remit is to examine the administration, policy and expenditure of the agencies. The Bill provides that they shall have access to the information that they require to fulfil that remit, subject to the provisions of schedule 3. The committee has no role in investigating complaints, nor is it its role to oversee the work of the tribunal.
The investigation of complaints naturally involves detailed consideration of precise operational information. That may include information listed in paragraph 4 of schedule 3 which is defined as sensitive. For that reason, we are not prepared to accept that the tribunal should automatically give details of all its cases to the oversight committee.
At first sight, amendment No. 24 attracts some sympathy. It requires the tribunal to give reasons to a complainant for its determination, if it can do so without endangering national security. The amendment has an attraction, since I appreciate that complainants may feel aggrieved when they receive no explanation for the tribunal's decision on their case, whether their complaint is upheld or not.
Before I explain why we have a problem with the amendment, the House should remember that many organisations throughout the world—and closer to home—are keen to learn about security and intelligence apparatus and techniques in this country. That is self-evident. Many of those organisations are extremely sophisticated and have considerable resources. They are capable of monitoring all sorts of information and much can be inferred from what is not, as well as what is, made public when collating intelligence information.
As the Government have often said, they remain absolutely committed to ensuring the continued security of the agencies' operations. Without that security the work of the agencies would be ineffective. For that reason, it is vital that information about the operations and procedures of the agencies is not inadvertently divulged in any circumstances.
Security would obviously be jeopardised if complainants who were properly the subject of investigation were made aware of that fact. If, on the other hand, the


practice of informing only those complainants against whom no action had been taken were introduced, it could clearly be inferred that complainants who were not so informed had been the subject of action by an agency. Security would therefore be jeopardised.
Accordingly, in the Government's view, almost any practice of disclosure to a complainant would in the long term damage national security. That would make the amendment ineffective, if not arguably dangerous, and for that reason I cannot commend it to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 87, Noes 258.

Division No. 225]
[10.30 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Lewis, Terry


Barnes, Harry
Llwyd, Elfyn


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Loyden, Eddie


Blunkett, David
Lynne, Ms Liz


Boyes, Roland
Macdonald, Calum


Bradley, Keith
McFall, John


Byers, Stephen
Mackinlay, Andrew


Caborn, Richard
McWilliam, John


Callaghan, Jim
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Mahon, Alice


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Mandelson, Peter


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Maxton, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Michael, Alun


Cohen, Harry
Milburn, Alan


Connarty, Michael
Miller, Andrew


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Morley, Elliot


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Mullin, Chris


Corbyn, Jeremy
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Cousins, Jim
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Cox, Tom
Pike, Peter L.


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Davidson, Ian
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Primarolo, Dawn


Dixon, Don
Randall, Stuart


Dowd, Jim
Raynsford, Nick


Eastham, Ken
Redmond, Martin


Etherington, Bill
Reid, Dr John


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Foster, Don (Bath)
Rogers, Allan


Fyfe, Maria
Sheerman, Barry


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Short, Clare


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Simpson, Alan


Graham, Thomas
Skinner, Dennis


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Wicks, Malcolm


Gunnell, John
Winnick, David


Hanson, David
Wise, Audrey


Hinchliffe, David
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Home Robertson, John



Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Mr. Gordon McMaster.


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Baldry, Tony


Alexander, Richard
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Beggs, Roy


Amess, David
Bellingham, Henry


Arbuthnot, James
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Body, Sir Richard


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Ashby, David
Booth, Hartley


Aspinwall, Jack
Boswell, Tim


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bowden, Andrew


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Bowis, John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Brandreth, Gyles





Brazier, Julian
Hawksley, Warren


Bright, Graham
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hendry, Charles


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Budgen, Nicholas
Horam, John


Burns, Simon
Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Burt, Alistair
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Butler, Peter
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Carrington, Matthew
Hunter, Andrew


Carttiss, Michael
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cash, William
Jack, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Jenkin, Bernard


Churchill, Mr
Jessel, Toby


Clappison, James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Kilfedder, Sir James


Coe, Sebastian
Kirkhope, Timothy


Congdon, David
Knapman, Roger


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Knox, Sir David


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Cormack, Patrick
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Couchman, James
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Cran, James
Legg, Barry


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Leigh, Edward


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Day, Stephen
Lidington, David


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Lightbown, David


Devlin, Tim
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lord, Michael


Dover, Den
Luff, Peter


Duncan, Alan
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Duncan-Smith, Iain
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Durant, Sir Anthony
Maclean, David


Eggar, Tim
McLoughlin, Patrick


Elletson, Harold
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Madel, Sir David


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Malone, Gerald


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Mans, Keith


Faber, David
Marlow, Tony


Fabricant, Michael
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fishburn, Dudley
Mates, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Forth, Eric
Merchant, Piers


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Mills, Iain


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Moate, Sir Roger


French, Douglas
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Fry, Sir Peter
Monro, Sir Hector


Gallie, Phil
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gardiner, Sir George
Moss, Malcolm


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Nelson, Anthony


Garnier, Edward
Neubert, Sir Michael


Gill, Christopher
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Gillan, Cheryl
Nicholls, Patrick


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Gorst, John
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Norris, Steve


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Grylls, Sir Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Page, Richard


Hague, William
Patnick, Irvine


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Pawsey, James


Hampson, Dr Keith
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hanley, Jeremy
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hannam, Sir John
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hargreaves, Andrew
Rathbone, Tim


Harris, David
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hawkins, Nick
Renton, Rt Hon Tim






Richards, Rod
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Thomason, Roy


Robathan, Andrew
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Thomton, Sir Malcolm


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Thurnham, Peter


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Sackville, Tom
Tracey, Richard


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Tredinnick, David


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Trend, Michael


Shaw, David (Dover)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Viggers, Peter


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Shersby, Michael
Walden, George


Sims, Roger
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Waller, Gary


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Soames, Nicholas
Waterson, Nigel


Speed, Sir Keith
Watts, John


Spencer, Sir Derek
Wells, Bowen


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Spink, Dr Robert
Whitney, Ray


Spring, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Sproat, Iain
Widdecombe, Ann


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wilkinson, John


Steen, Anthony
Willetts, David


Stephen, Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Stern, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Streeter, Gary
Wolfson, Mark


Sweeney, Walter
Yeo, Tim


Sykes, John



Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Mr. Derek Conway.

Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule 3

THE INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY COMMITTEE

Amendment made: No. 32, in page 13, line 15, leave out from 'three' to end of line 17.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Winnick: I wish that I could be more enthusiastic about the Bill, especially in view of the long campaign to ensure that the security services are subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
I wish that I were in a position tonight in which I could say that the campaign had succeeded, and that the oversight that is necessary to ensure that the security services act in the way in which they should act had been accomplished, but I am afraid that I am not in that position. Therefore, like my hon. Friends, I am somewhat critical of the measure. I am not enthusiastic.
It is regrettable that the Government, having gone down the road of parliamentary scrutiny of a type, have stopped far short of what they should be doing. I should like to be able to say that the long campaign had come to a victorious conclusion. I should like to be able to say that the House could now be satisfied that it was establishing genuine parliamentary scrutiny along the lines of other western democracies. Unfortunately, I am not in that position.
I say this to the Minister. This would have been the opportunity to end the controversy. This would have been the opportunity to say that the battle had been won. The

parties should agree to an oversight committee and there is no reason why it should continue to be the subject of controversy.
I do not believe that we do the services—the intelligence services, MI5, MI6 and Government communications headquarters, Cheltenham—any favours by creating a situation in which the controversy will continue. I agree that the controversy will continue in a more limited form, but it will continue. It will continue because we have not ensured the necessary type of parliamentary scrutiny.
It is unfortunate that the proposed oversight committee will report not directly to the House but to the Prime Minister and hence there will be a feeling that the committee is more similar to a Cabinet subcommittee than it should be. I regret even more deeply the fact that the proposed committee will not have powers and papers which it should have.
I challenged the Minister earlier about what would happen if a witness who had been summoned to the committee decided that he or she did not want to appear. I asked whether, in those circumstances, the Government would be in favour of ensuring that the person concerned was forced to go to the committee as to a Select Committee. The Minister of State at the Foreign Office said that the Government would be willing to do nothing of the kind.
It is unfortunate indeed that the oversight committee does not yet have the powers and authority that the House
should give such a committee. I do not know who will
serve on the committee, but I hope that, in spite of the limitations that I have outlined and in spite of the criticisms that were made by the Labour party in Committee and on the Floor of the House, the committee, once it is set up, will regard its job as that of a genuine oversight committee.
One of the reasons that I, and I am sure most of my hon. Friends, will not vote against the Third Reading is that we believe that the measure goes at least some of the way towards what we want to do. If we were of the view that it was entirely a mockery, for such a committee would serve no purpose, obviously we would vote against Third Reading, as we would have done against Second Reading, but that is not our view. I accept, as I said a few moments ago, that it goes down the type of road that we want to travel, but how much better it would have been if it had gone down the road of other western democracies.
How much better it would be if we could say, apart from anything else tonight, that the campaign has now ended. It will not end. From time to time, hon. Members such as I will no doubt make the arguments that we have made before.
Nevertheless, I wish the proposed committee every success. I hope that it will carry out the type of functions that it should carry out. I have never disputed that we need the security and intelligence services, and would need them even if we were not confronted by the curse of continuing terrorism. I know of no country—no democracy—that does not have some type of intelligence and security services and I cannot anticipate any circumstances in the future in which the facilities of such a service will not be necessary. A democracy has a right to defend itself.
My criticism of the security services has been largely connected with the scandals and abuses that have occurred. I have never questioned the need for such services, and, as I have said, I see no reason for us to work on the assumption that such assistance to the democracy in which


we live will not continue. Nevertheless, the intelligence and security services should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the same way as other arms and agencies of Government. The need for such scrutiny explains why parliamentary control was introduced, why Select Committees were set up in 1979 and why some other Committees existed before then.
If we could assume that the committee would do the job that I consider necessary, we should be far happier tonight. Notwithstanding all those criticisms, I believe that we should give the committee an opportunity to work, and to see how far it goes in its work; but I am certain that the matter will return to the House at some future date. I am convinced, as I was before, not only that there should be parliamentary oversight but that a Select Committee should be established—and one of these days such a committee will come into being, along the lines that we advocate.

Mr. Allason: The Bill puts on a statutory footing an agency that has existed since 1909, and establishes a commissioner and a tribunal to hear complaints from the public. It is not a consequence of an investigation conducted by Otis Pike or Frank Church—the kind of investigation that was undertaken in the United States; there has never been any sabotage of a Greenpeace vessel like Rainbow Warrior. The only scandals to have preoccupied the SIS, MI5 and GCHQ in recent years have been the unauthorised disclosures made by retired security and intelligence personnel. More than £1 million of taxpayers' money was wasted in the fruitless, counterproductive pursuit of Peter Wright, thereby-ensuring that "Spycatcher" became an international best-seller.
Wright was resident abroad, and had acquired Australian citizenship. Accordingly, the public watched the unedifying spectacle of an Australian judge, in an Australian court, with an Australian defendant, deciding what was or was not in the British national interest. GCHQ avoided a similar fiasco by taking out an injunction against a former radio officer, Jock Kane; as a retiree—a pensioner now working as a milkman in Hampshire—he has been unable to produce his memoirs, but no doubt he will be one of the complainants before the tribunal and the commissioner.
As for the SIS, it is in a curious position following the enactment of the Official Secrets Act in 1989. Two books have driven a coach and horses through the Act. Desmond Bristow was engaged in an acrimonious correspondence with the Treasury solicitor; he is resident in Spain and his publishers are American, so he held a strong hand when he ignored the threats and released "A Game of Moles" last year. Similarly, Brian Crozier received a series of threats from the Cabinet Secretary regarding his book "Free Agent".
The bottom line is that both books, written by retired SIS officers, were perceived by their former employers to be prejudicial to national security: that is quite clear from the exchanges between the various parties. However, absolutely no action of any kind has been taken against them—or, indeed, against the late Nicholas Elliott, who told me shortly before his tragic death some 10 days ago that he he had applied for and received permission to publish a third volume of his memoirs. The first did not mention his lengthy career in the SIS; the second was a

delightful account of his clandestine life. Alas, the third will never be published; but it is certain that other such books will follow. With compulsory redundancies being imposed on the SIS for the first time in the 85 years of its history, perhaps we should anticipate that disenchanted early retirees will capitalise on their experiences.
The current arrangement for dealing with the authorisation of the memoirs of security and intelligence personnel is manifestly unsatisfactory. It is conducted on the basis of nods, winks and threats that amount to impotent bluff. If there is a single issue that affects the operational capacity of all three agencies covered by the Bill, it is disclosure of the kind that I have described.
Although I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his handling of the Bill, I hope that the commission and the tribunal will be allowed to interpret their briefs sufficiently widely to avoid more lapses of the type that brought the security services so unfairly and unnecessarily into disrepute.

Mr. Mullin: The security services have been brought into disrepute over the years because of their own actions, which they no doubt thought would never see the light of day. However, many of those actions did see the light of day, partly due to the disclosures to which the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) has referred.
My problem with what has happened in the past—I do not suggest that it is still happening, although I suppose that we shall have to wait a few years to find out—is more fundamental than that expressed by the hon. Member for Torbay. It is a matter of record that, in the past, the security services have to a great extent been targeted against the party which, for 17 of the past 45 years, has formed the Government and that they have on occasion been used to subvert the elected Government.
I do not know whether it is still the case but, at least until fairly recently, the security services were permanently under the control of the friends of one political party. That was certainly the experience of previous Labour Governments. In another place, Lord Jenkins referred to the "in-growing monoculture" of the security services which he found when he was, nominally at least, in charge of them. Unhappily, it has also been the case that the security services have been targeted by their political masters against people involved in legitimate activities—that was the reason why Cathy Massiter resigned.
I suppose that it could be said that the services have for many years been out of everyone's control, and certainly out of Parliament's control. Indeed, until the Bill came before the House, no one had ever suggested that Parliament should have any say in the matter. I believe that they have been out of the control of all Secretaries of State and most Prime Ministers of either party.
There is a wider problem. It is also a matter of record that the security services have been paralysed by internal feuding. People who care about national security—many, especially Conservative Members, say that they do—should at least be concerned about the extent to which the operational capability of the security services has been entirely diverted by such feuding. Many Conservatives also claim to be concerned about getting value for money, so they should be concerned about the fact that millions of


pounds have been wasted by being invested in enterprises that were not effective even within the terms of reference that the security services set themselves.
A further problem was outlined by Robin Robison, a chap who worked in the Cabinet Office until a couple years of ago. He said that domestic telephone tapping had increased massively in recent years. I have no way of confirming his suggestion, although the issue was raised in Committee, that, although GCHQ was supposed to target foreign communications, its vast facilities have been used for domestic tapping. He worked in the Cabinet Office and says that he saw the product of some of those taps.
The litmus test of the new committee to be established by the Bill will be the extent to which it is able to oblige the security services to put a stop to the nonsense that has occurred in the past. The problem will not arise immediately because it is in the nature of things that, whichever Government happen to be in office, the security services tend to be under the control of the friends of one political party—the party which is presently in government. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] The test would come after the next election, were there to be a change of Government. Would a Labour Government be able to receive the same loyal service from the security services as the present Government believe that they receive? I do not think so. The record suggests that that would not happen. At that point, we would find out whether the committee established by the Bill makes any difference.
I shall cite an example from the 1970s. If forged documents about Swiss bank accounts in the name of, say, the deputy leader of the Labour party suddenly-appeared on the market, as happened in the 1970s, would the committee be able to pursue an inquiry and follow the trail wherever it led? I do not know, but it should be able to do so.
How easily could the committee be nobbled? Others have commented on that problem, so I shall do so only in passing, but that will be easy. As others have remarked, the Bill gives the security services carte blanche. There is no definition of the national interest, of serious crime or of economic well-being; there is no definition that limits their activities in any way. As the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said, there is no definition of what constitutes legitimate dissent.
The second problem with the committee is that, as others have also said, it is a creature not of Parliament but of the Government. It will be appointed by the Prime Minister and will report to the Prime Minister, and it will be the Prime Minister who decides what it sees.
Thirdly, the committee has no powers to compel persons and papers to come before it. In Committee we moved amendments to introduce such powers, and they were rejected. There is no power comparable with Select Committees' reserve powers to require witnesses to give evidence on oath. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) rightly made much of that issue in Committee, but when the idea was put to the Government they rejected it.
The committee will be staffed not by servants of the House but by civil servants, probably supplied by the Cabinet Office. To a great extent it will be in the hands of people who are servants not of Parliament but of the Government. Furthermore, it appears to be committed to the obsessive secrecy that has surrounded the activities of

the security services for so long. The committee has no power that I can detect to hold any public sessions. I do not see why it should not hold some. As a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, I was one of the people invited to lunch with the director of MI5, Mrs. Rimington. Nothing took place at that lunch that could not easily have been said in public.
I do not see why, now or at some time in the future, the committee should not have the power to interview those in charge of the security services, at least about the general principles of their work. I do not see why it should not be able to do what is done in other mature democracies, and interview candidates for the top jobs in those services. Why should they not be interviewed, so that their commitment to parliamentary democracy can be tested in public?
For example, if Mr. Spedding, who has just been appointed as head of MI6, were to come before the committee, one would want to know what he was doing in Chile in 1973. That was a time when the democratically elected Government of that country were overthrown, with much violence. It would be a test of Mr. Spedding's commitment to parliamentary democracy if we asked whether he, representing the security services there, played any part in that process.
If Mrs. Rimington were up for the job of head of MI5, as she was a few years ago, and we had the power to conduct such interviews, one would want to talk to her in general terms about her commitment to parliamentary democracy, especially in relation to some of the activities in which F branch of MI5 engaged during the early 1980s—the activities that caused Cathy Massiter to resign.
The only concession that we succeeded in extracting from the Government in Committee was an increase in the size of the oversight committee. Although we are grateful for that, it is not adequate. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) made the point that it is much in the interests of the security services that the exercise is credible. I am sure that there are genuine democrats in the security services and that many of them—perhaps the majority—want the services to be properly accountable. In the last few years, there has been a large clear-out of what one former Home Secretary described to me as dead wood, and it is at least arguable that the majority of those in the services are firmly committed to parliamentary democracy and proper accountability, and the Bill does not provide that.
The Bill is the first step on a long road—which is why, in common with my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North, I shall not vote against its Third Reading. I am glad that the committee is being established, and were a future Government so minded, there would be nothing to prevent them from making amendments to rectify some of the problems that I and others outlined.
There has been much speculation about likely candidates for membership of the oversight committee. Some of them were depressingly predictable, and I hope that the committee will include one or two inquiring minds. As the committee is presently empowered, it will not be good enough merely to have inquiring minds. It must have the power to do the job properly—on behalf of Parliament, not the Executive.

Dr. Gilbert: I do not usually detain the House at this time of night, and I rise to speak only because I am filled with a great sense of disappointment over missed possibilities. Right hon. and hon. Members who did not serve on the Standing Committee ought to know that we were faced by a Minister who was not only extraordinarily unbriefed but extraordinarily obdurate.
Normally, it would not matter if a Minister were unbriefed, provided that he had some experience of committee matters. Apart from the GCHQ debate, not one of the amendments with which the two Ministers had to contend had any partisan flavour, yet the Minister of State did not know the powers of Select Committees. He had to go away and be instructed that they have powers to swear witnesses. He did not know the powers in his own Bill with respect to the committee that he was establishing. He had to take advice as to whether it would be able to swear witnesses.
We even had the spectacle of a Queen's counsel, a man of considerable intelligence—to which I pay tribute—and a man who, given the disarray of the Government's Law Officers, has a distinct future as a Law Officer, although that is no great compliment to him, choosing to say that, for all practical purposes, the country no longer needs a law of perjury. It defeats me why the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that the law of the land should be as it is in that respect.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman kept telling us that the oversight committee was not a Select Committee, which we all knew, but he never said why. Amendment No. 37, which was understandably not selected, and my hon. Friends pointed out that it is really a prime ministerial committee. In addition, the Minister is totally lacking in ability to master simple arithmetic up to a sum of five. He finds it necessary for the oversight committee's chairman to have two votes—one to create a tie and one to break a tie. That is not the case in a Select Committee, but as the committee is not a Select Committee it shall be different. If we have a five to three to one committee—we must assume that the Minister sensibly relies on there being partisan votes—that is virtually a five to four committee and the chairman will not need two votes because he will have a vote to break a tie. If there is a defection from the Government ranks, it becomes not a five to three to one or a five to four committee but a four to five committee. In that event, the chairman's second vote is of no use to him because he will not be able to use it.
The Minister may have mastered the law but it is clear that he has not mastered the most simple addition tables. He had not appreciated before the Bill came before the House that it was nonsensical to require that one member of the quorum be a Member of the House of Lords, even though the practical absurdities of that requirement were pointed out to him personally before the Bill reached the Floor of the House. We had to wait until today before he conceded that point.
Why should such an intelligent Minister behave in such a way? The word is being put about that it is nothing to do with his Department and nothing to do with the Foreign Office, which was prepared to be reasonable. It is said that the Home Office created the difficulties. If that should be the case, my only hope is that some Home Office officials come before a Select Committee before too long.
The Bill is the product of Ministers who individually have no Committee experience to speak of. The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science was kind enough to admit that. Equally, his ministerial colleague has no Committee experience. The Bill is the product of a Government who are terrified of facing a Select Committee.
For all these reasons a great opportunity has been missed. That is a sad thing to have to say. It could all have been so much easier. We could have completed today's proceedings in a fraction of the time that it has taken to reach this stage. However, I welcome the Bill, despite my reservations—[Interruption.] There is not the slightest inconsistency. I welcome the Bill because it sets a precedent.

Mr. Allason: Give him a job.

Dr. Gilbert: The hon. Gentleman would be surprised by what happened if the Government did that.
As I have said, the Bill sets a precedent for some parliamentary scrutiny of these operations. I hope that the committee will have success. I hope also that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), who will respond on behalf of the Opposition, will assure us that one of the first tasks of a Labour Administration will be to ensure that the committee is converted into a full-blown Select Committee.

Mr. Rogers: Our consideration of the Bill in Committee was extremely interesting. For many of us—those not obsessed with the secret and security services—it was quite a learning experience. I thank all my hon. Friends who served on the Committee and Conservative Members for the positive way in which they approached our debates.
I do not know whether I agree with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) about the Minister of State. On occasions, I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was too well briefed. I wish that he had been a little briefer in expounding some of his briefs. It was an experience, however, for many of us to learn about some fundamental matters that are extremely important to society.
We are talking about the security of the nation, the balance of security in the process of law, the balance of security and the rights of individuals, the assertion of parliamentary democracy and accountability and control over the state and the Government. On many occasions it was right to pay tribute to members of the security services for the dedicated work that they have undertaken over many years. It was right also to say on other occasions that there were members of the security services who had let down their comrades as well as letting down the nation by defecting and acting to the detriment of society.
The Opposition recognise that the effectiveness of the country's security and intelligence services depends on a degree of secrecy that would be unacceptable in other institutions. However, that latitude puts the services in a unique position. That is why we tabled amendments to clause 1 and clause 10 in particular so as to focus on the rights and privileges of the security services and on the accountability of those services to Parliament and to democracy.
Our main concern has always been the control aspect—the process of accountability that is enshrined within the Bill. We regret the Government's minimalist approach. It does not fulfil the Bill's original intention, which was to create a more open society and more open government. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, East that the Government have missed an opportunity to bring about an openness in an aspect of society that has been secret for too long. We are probably the most secretive society of all the western democracies.
Unfortunately, clause 10, which sets up the Intelligence and Security Committee, does not also set up a process of accountability. There is no breaking of the ring of secrecy. There is no way of operating outside the ring of the Secretary of State and the Joint Intelligence Committee tasking the security services, of the Secretary of State issuing a warrant so that they can operate outside the law where they feel that that is necessary, of the services reporting back to the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State filtering information before it comes to the Intelligence and Security Committee and the Prime Minister and the head of the agencies using their right to sideline information. The circle is too tight and too complete.
The committee will be a charade, a pretence at accountability. The Minister responsible for open government may shake his head, but the proof is in the pudding. I hope that the committee has a better record than the tribunal that was set up under the Security Service Act 1989. That tribunal has been what I feel this committee will be—a pretence at accountability.
We will not force a Division because the Opposition accept that we need secret services, and that they need to be secret. We commend the Government for going as far as they have, but we wish that they had taken this opportunity to go a little bit further, accepted many of our constructive amendments and ended up with a better Act.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 216, Noes 10.

Division No.226]
[11.13


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Alexander, Richard
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Budgen, Nicholas


Amess, David
Burns, Simon


Arbuthnot, James
Burt, Alistair


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Butler, Peter


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Ashby, David
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Carrington, Matthew


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Carttiss, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Cash, William


Baldry, Tony
Clappison, James


Beggs, Roy
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bellingham, Henry
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Coe, Sebastian


Booth, Hartley
Congdon, David


Boswell, Tim
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bowden, Andrew
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Bowis, John
Cran, James


Brandreth, Gyles
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Brazier, Julian
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bright, Graham
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Day, Stephen





Deva, Nirj Joseph
Marlow, Tony


Devlin, Tim
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Dorrell, Stephen
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mates, Michael


Dover, Den
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Duncan, Alan
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Merchant, Piers


Durant, Sir Anthony
Mills, Iain


Elletson, Harold
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Moate, Sir Roger


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Moss, Malcolm


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Nelson, Anthony


Faber, David
Neubert, Sir Michael


Fabricant, Michael
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Nicholls, Patrick


Forman, Nigel
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Norris, Steve


Forth, Eric
Oppenheim, Phillip


Foster, Don (Bath)
Ottaway, Richard


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Page, Richard


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Paice, James


French, Douglas
Patnick, Irvine


Gallie, Phil
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Gill, Christopher
Porter, David (Waveney)


Gillan, Cheryl
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Rathbone, Tim


Gorst, John
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Richards, Rod


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hague, William
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Hanley, Jeremy
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Harris, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hawkins, Nick
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hawksley, Warren
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hendry, Charles
Soames, Nicholas


Hicks, Robert
Speed, Sir Keith


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Horam, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Spink, Dr Robert


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Spring, Richard


Hunter, Andrew
Sproat, Iain


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Jack, Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Jenkin, Bernard
Stephen, Michael


Jessel, Toby
Stern, Michael


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Streeter, Gary


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sweeney, Walter


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Sykes, John


Kilfedder, Sir James
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Knapman, Roger
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Thomason, Roy


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Thurnham, Peter


Legg, Barry
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Leigh, Edward
Tracey, Richard


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Tredinnick, David


Lidington, David
Trend, Michael


Lightbown, David
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Viggers, Peter


Lord, Michael
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Luff, Peter
Walden, George


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Waller, Gary


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Maclean, David
Waterson, Nigel


McLoughlin, Patrick
Watts, John


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Wells, Bowen


Madel, Sir David
Whitney, Ray


Maitland, Lady Olga
Whittingdale, John


Malone, Gerald
Widdecombe, Ann


Mans, Keith
Wilkinson, John






Willetts, David
Yeo, Tim


Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)



Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wolfson, Mark
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Wood, Timothy
Mr. Derek Conway.

NOES


Barnes, Harry
Loyden, Eddie


Corbyn, Jeremy
Mahon, Alice


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Wray, Jimmy


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)



Hood, Jimmy
Tellers for the Noes:


Lewis, Terry
Mr. Dennis Skinner and


Llwyd, Elfyn
Mr. Alan Simpson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Baby Milk (EC Directive)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]

Mr. David Faber: I am most grateful for the opportunity to raise concerns about the Government's draft regulations implementing the EC directive on infant formula and follow-on formula—commonly known to most of us as baby milk. I hope that, in doing so, hon. Members will forgive me for not giving way, but I have some ground to cover in the time available.
I would particularly like to acknowledge my constituent, Cow and Gate Nutricia of Trowbridge—one of Europe's leading companies in infant feeding products and clinical nutrition, and a household name to millions of mothers over many years—for bringing the matter to my attention.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames): Hear, hear.

Mr. Faber: I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend say that. I have no doubt that, while we may have differing physiques, he—like me—was a Cow and Gate baby at one stage.
The EC directive on infant formula and follow-on formula contains much that should be welcomed by mothers and by the baby milk industry alike. The majority of the rules on marketing contained within it are already enshrined in a voluntary UK code of practice, which was agreed as long ago as 1983 between the Government, the industry and health care professionals.
That voluntary code of practice and the entire debate surrounding the advertising and marketing of baby milk starts with one basic presumption—that breast is best. Mothers should be, and are, encouraged to breast-feed babies so long as it is physically and practically possible for them to do so.
However, in the real world, we all know that that is not always the case. For that reason, I believe that the draft UK regulations enforcing the EC directive go much too far. The code of practice was introduced with Government backing in 1983, since when it has been supported by a code monitoring committee of which the majority of members are completely independent of infant formula companies. The code bans advertising to the general public, except under the control of the health care system, and controls advertising to health professionals themselves.
The committee considers complaints against the code, which are rarely numerous and are often from pressure groups. Few of the complaints are upheld. Since the adoption of the code, baby milk manufacturers themselves have taken further steps to control their marketing by banning the free supply of infant formula and subsidised supplies to the health service from 1989 onwards. Much of what is contained in the EC directive merely goes to formalise what has been to date an informal voluntary code of practice.
It is particularly sad, therefore, that the draft UK regulations to implement this directive which come into force in June go beyond what is either necessary or desirable, and my concern is shared almost across the


board by the baby milk industry, health care professionals and, most importantly, by the consumers—that is to say, the mothers themselves.
In seeking to ban advertising both to mothers themselves in health journals and to the wholesale and retail trade, the draft regulations are an affront to free trade, anti-competitive and, above all, a denial of a mother's right to free choice and free information. The bottom line is that mothers need information to allow them to make informed choices about how to feed their infants.
Within the current UK code of practice, it is possible for manufacturers to advertise their formula brands to mothers, provided that such advertisements appear in specialist maternity and mothercraft publications which are already distributed within the health care system. Parents can obtain information about infant feeding from a number of different sources—health professionals, the Government, specialist organisations and, of course, the manufacturers of baby milk themselves.
All those sources of information have an important role to play in providing suitable information to ensure an informed choice. Since the voluntary code was introduced in 1983, the Government have spent roughly £26,500 a year to promote breast-feeding through the national breast-feeding initiative. That total sum translates into a yearly figure of 33p per baby.
In contrast, baby milk manufacturers currently provide a service to health professionals and mothers by providing information about infant feeding, including both breast and bottle-feeding. They do so through leaflets, sponsorship, the training of health professionals, advertising, videos and customer health lines. It is said that the majority of the services they offer are currently offered under the control of the health care system. In all, it is estimated that the industry hands some 5 million educational leaflets a year to roughly 800,000 mothers.
The proposed legislation limits the provision of educational information material to parents and health professionals. Manufacturers will often find that they are no longer able to provide the variety and depth of information and material that can currently be found. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can tell me what plans the Government have, given the mass exodus from the information and educational market that will probably take place if the regulations are enforced, to provide the additional information that will be necessary for mothers and health professionals in order to fulfil the obligations contained in the EC directive to
provide objective and consistent information
about infant feeding.

Mr. Elliot Morley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Faber: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will keep going.

Mr. Morley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I regret making a point of order, but I understand that it is a convention in the House that Members who have an interest declare that interest when they speak on a matter which relates directly to it. I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but I have not heard him declare his interest in Sterling Marketing, of which I understand that he is a director, and which is involved in advertising and

marketing. The debate has some relevance to advertising and marketing. I wonder whether you could give us some guidance on that point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): The rules of the House are clear: any hon. Member who has an interest in a debate should declare it.

Mr. Faber: I am happy to put the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. Sterling Marketing is not involved in advertising in any way. It produces mail order brochures and has absolutely nothing to do with either the infant formula market or the marketing of any good, let alone advertising. It produces mail order brochures for retail products. I have no connection with Sterling Marketing since I left it, except that I remain a shareholder.
What are the key factors that affect a mother's choice whether to breast-feed? They are rooted in deep-seated personal preferences and advice from family, friends and health professionals, and social factors. Since 1983, when marketing controls were introduced, the proportion of mothers who breast-feed to mothers who bottle-feed has barely altered.
In 1980, before the introduction of the 1983 voluntary code of practice, the breast-feeding rate among the population was 65 per cent. According to a written reply by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) on 3 February, the figure was again 65 per cent. in 1985. After the 1988 voluntary ban on free samples, the latest Government-reported breast-feeding rate in 1990 was 64 per cent.—a drop of just 1 per cent.
In a complex psychological process, in which rationality often conflicts with emotion, up to a third of mothers choose to bottle-feed from the outset, while many more make a token gesture to breast-feed before giving up. More than half of all mothers feel comfortable and confident about bottle-feeding their baby, but the irrefutable fact remains that breast-feeding is the best option to adopt.
The Government's report "Infant feeding 1990" gave the top seven reasons that mothers gave for bottle-feeding. They were: so that other people could feed the baby, the mother's previous experience, that the mother disliked the idea of breast-feeding, embarrassment, to see how much milk the infant had drunk, medical reasons and an expectation of a quick return to work. Advertising of infant formula was not given as a reason why mothers chose to bottle-feed rather than to breast-feed.
I am happy to say that fathers, too, are responsible for influencing the feeding method. In 1992, independent research showed that fathers were found to have a high level of interest and involvement in the feeding process. Their attitude was likely to be a major influence on the woman's choice of feeding method, second only to her personal inclinations and way above the role of advertising.

Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Faber: I am a little pushed for time.
What is the role of advertising within the infant formula industry? Infant formula advertising in this country does not promote bottle-feeding over breast-feeding. It provides information to allow mothers to make an informed choice


about what to feed their infant should they choose to bottle-feed. In all current advertising, manufacturers already stress the superiority of breast over bottle-feeding. That will be further strengthened by the requirements of the European Community directive.
It is clear that the key reasons why infant formula manufacturers advertise—operating under the code of practice—are to provide information and to compete against other brands of infant formula, but not to promote bottle-feeding over breast-feeding.
A survey undertaken by the independent research company Market Trends earlier this year showed that all groups of health professionals vigorously oppose the Government's proposed ban on consumer advertising—64 per cent. of health visitors, 68 per cent. of midwives, 61 per cent. of general practitioners and 60 per cent. of directors of midwifery all disagreed with an advertising ban.
The same research overwhelmingly showed that parents want infant formula advertising, and most certainly do not want a ban on consumer advertising—88 per cent. of all mothers said that they did not want a ban, 74 per cent. of mothers who breast-feed only do not want a ban, and an astonishing 90 per cent. of mothers who both breast and bottle-feed did not support the proposed ban.
As well as depriving mothers of freedom of choice and free access to information, the draft regulations represent overpowering restrictions on free competition, and will discriminate against United Kingdom consumers and manufacturers by inhibiting free competition between companies and countries.
A ban on advertising will effectively freeze the present market situation in the UK, and manufacturers are likely to be faced with a static market, with roughly the proportions of market share that they currently hold.
Research and development in the field of infant nutrition is expensive and time-consuming, but leads to real and significant improvements in baby milk products, bringing them ever closer to breast milk. Unless manufacturers are able to make consumers aware of the differences and advantages of choosing one infant formula over another, there is little incentive for them to innovate and produce new products.
A ban on consumer advertising and the proposed restrictions on labelling information may mean that the rate of research and development slows down dramatically as manufacturers are simply unable to obtain any further benefits from it.
The proposed ban within the draft regulations on advertising to the grocery and drugstore trade will deny industry an important communication channel with its distributors. Trade advertising does not promote infant formula to consumers, but it serves to make retail outlets more aware of infant formula products that they may wish to stock. About 39 per cent. of all infant formula is sold through grocery outlets, and if a significant number of retailers are not permitted to have information about infant formula products, there is likely to be a reduction in the number of outlets that stock that formula.
Can my hon. Friend the Minister tell me of one other legal product that is freely and openly sold where such a ban on advertising is in effect? At a time when the Government, whether rightly or wrongly, refuse to ban the advertising to consumers of tobacco products, does he not think it ironic that we should be discussing a much more restrictive type of ban on, of all things, baby milk?
At a time when we are increasingly aware of the

so-called level playing field in Europe and progressive deregulation here at home, why do the Government seek once again to go beyond what is proposed by Brussels? In January this year, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in a consultation document on the deregulation of the food industry, outlined the criteria for introducing new legislation. Does the proposed legislation go further than is necessary? What is likely to be its impact on business, has industry been adequately consulted, and what does it think?
The legislation goes further than is necessary and will not achieve its stated aim of promoting and protecting breast-feeding. The regulations attempt to introduce extra rules and regulations that go way beyond the EC directive and will be of benefit to no one, least of all the mothers.
I think that I can anticipate one aspect of my hon. Friend's reply—that these are draft regulations and we are still in a period of consultation. I can only say that I hope that he will take this as one further submission, as part of that process, in addition to the many submissions opposing the regulations that he has already received. Perhaps my hon. Friend would also like to consider the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on "BBC News" on 3 December in Brussels, when he said:
National Governments don't always translate Community Directives into plain rules that everyone can understand. We sometimes add extra rules simply because they seem a good idea to Departments, to advisers, or to pressure groups.
Mothers want information to help them make an informed choice about what to feed their babies should they choose to bottle feed. They should not be made to feel that they are in some way doing something wrong or nasty if they are unable or unwilling to breast feed. I believe that it is right to leave the last word to a mother who wrote to the Daily Mail just last month:
When I became pregnant with my little boy … I intended from the start to breastfeed him. But when Jordan was born, much to my dismay I found it extremely difficult—and for him the whole experience was very distressing. After four days of unsuccessful attempts, I reluctantly agreed to put Jordan on bottled milk and the result was fantastic: a much happier baby and a more relaxed mum … but at the time I felt extremely guilty and a complete and utter failure as a mother.
Hundreds of women are faced with a similar problem. Like me, they start out with good intentions, but after the birth of their child they find breastfeeding impossible. They are getting very negative messages from the Government about their ability as mothers.
I very much hope that my hon. Friend will take this opportunity tonight to send out a more positive message to all of those mothers.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member fo Westbury (Mr. Faber) for raising this subject. It is a tribute to my hon. Friend that he should be surrounded this evening by his supporters and friends who have come to hear him debate the matter in such a formidably well-informed manner. I congratulate him on the clear, sensible and entirely reasonable way in which he put forward his case. This matter raises the most extraordinary heat on both sides of the argument and I know that there is currently a great deal of interest in it.
We issued proposals for United Kingdom regulations implementing the directive in December 1993. Since then, I have received a large number of letters from hon. Members about our proposals. We have had a good


response to our consultation exercise and, far from being cynical, my hon. Friend was perfectly right when he said that we are still in a period of consultation. He may rest assured that what he has said tonight will be a very important part of that consultation, and we will certainly treat his speech as a submission.
I do not want to jump too far ahead, so I will return to consultation later. Before I deal with the points that my hon. Friend has raised, I am sure that it will be helpful to set out for the House the background to this issue.
As my hon. Friend is aware, the World Health Assembly has adopted an international code of marketing of breast milk substitutes drawn up by the World Health Organisation. The aim of this code is to contribute to the provision of safe and adequate nutrition for infants by the protection and promotion of breast feeding and by ensuring the proper use of breast milk substitutes.
The Government are fully committed to action to improve breast feeding rates; it is one of our undertakings in relation to the "Health of the Nation" initiative. Individual countries were left to decide how best to implement the World Health Organisation's recommendations in their own territories. The United Kingdom Government decided that it could best be done through industry self-regulation and, following consultation with interested parties, a voluntary code of practice came into being in 1983 to give effect to the aim and principles of the World Health Organisation code.
To complement this, the health departments in the United Kingdom provide guidance to health authorities and health professionals which draws attention to the aims and principles of the WHO code, the voluntary industry code of practice, the establishment of a code monitoring committee, and the responsibilities of health care professionals. That is the system that has operated in the United Kingdom for the past 10 years.
In the mid to late 1980s, the European Community started to interfere, frankly, and to consider the introduction of European Union legislation. In 1991, it adopted directives on the composition, marketing and export of infant formulae and follow-on formulae.
I want to stress two points to my hon. Friend. First, although the EC directives are intended to implement the aims and the principles of the WHO code, they do not adopt its provisions in every detail. As with all EC measures, a consensus had to be reached to reflect the vastly differing views and practices of the various member states.
The second and more important point is that the United Kingdom is required to implement the terms of the EC directive, not the WHO recommendations. In the usual way, therefore, the Government have considered the terms of the EC directives and have drafted regulations to give them effect in the United Kingdom. As I said earlier, those draft regulations were sent out to interested parties early in December 1993, and comments were invited on the proposals.
I should like to make it absolutely clear to my hon. Friend that there has been overwhelming support for the majority of the provisions proposed in the draft regulations. There has been a unanimous welcome for compositional requirements—infant formula is the sole

source of nutrition for babies who are not breast-fed—and for labelling provisions that embody in statute that breast milk is without equal for infants in the first months of life.
Advertising is the one area on which opinion has been polarised. My hon. Friend has rightly identified that issue, and spoke about it sensibly. The manufacturers have complained that what the United Kingdom has proposed goes beyond the minimum requirements of the directive, is unnecessarily restrictive and does not conform with the Government's deregulation initiative.
I listened with great care to what my hon. Friend said about deregulation, the assurances given by the Prime Minister, and the entire thrust of my Ministry's legislative programme—to introduce regulation as a last resort. I must acknowledge that the latter point has struck a number of the hon. Members who have written to me, as it has struck me most formidably. I want to assure my hon. Friend that the decision will eventually be taken against that background as well as on all the other arguments.
I must also inform the House, however, that a large number of those who responded to the invitation to comment on the regulations were not only in support of the proposed advertising restrictions, but in some extraordinary way wanted them to be even more restrictive. They even went so far as requesting a total ban on advertising. They also want the advertising restriction to apply not only to infant formulae but to follow-on formulae. It is true to say that many of those letters were co-ordinated in a write-in.
It is right to consider what we are required to implement in the United Kingdom. Article 8 of the EC directive says:
Advertising of infant formulae shall be restricted to publications specialising in baby care and scientific publications. Member states may further restrict or prohibit such advertising.
The directive also adds:
Such advertising shall contain only information of a scientific and factual nature.
Regulation 17 of the draft United Kingdom regulations says:
 No person shall publish or display any advertisement for an infant formula except in a publication specialising in baby care or in a scientific publication of which, in either case, the intended readership is one of independent persons qualified in medicine, nutrition or pharmacy or having a professional qualification in maternal or child care.
As my hon. Friend has speculated, the wording of the United Kingdom regulations goes further than the minimum restriction in the directive, in that it restricts baby care publications to those with an intended readership of independent health care professionals. As I pointed out earlier, however, the directive allows member states to introduce further restrictions of their own.
Unequivocal medical advice has consistently supported breast feeding as the best way of feeding a baby. Restrictions on the advertising of infant formula have been developed to encourage mothers to give their children the best possible nutritional start in life. Given the health arguments in favour of breast feeding, we thought it right to explore the possibility of going further than the minimum required by the directive.
Other factors have to be taken into account when considering that possibility. Under the terms of the industry's voluntary code of practice, advertising in general baby care magazines read mainly by mothers and pregnant women is not permitted, although advertising is permitted if the magazines are distributed within the health care system. If we adopt the minimum laid down in the directive, it would appear to allow advertisements to be


placed in generally available baby care magazines. Should the UK regulations be less restrictive on advertising than those restrictions voluntarily adopted by the industry?
I am aware of the survey carried out by Bounty earlier this year on the proposed advertising restrictions. It has been suggested that the United Kingdom is the only country which is being more restrictive than the directive requires. We have made inquiries about other member states' intentions, and we await replies from some of them. However, from the information that we have received, it would appear that some countries—Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and France—intend to use the option in the directive to introduce restrictions beyond the minimum laid down in the directive.

Mr. David Lidington: So what?

Mr. Soames: So what nothing. I am merely telling my hon. Friend what the point of the argument is, and how the situation lies. That is what so what.
That is obviously something which the Government would wish to consider extremely carefully when finalising the regulations.
My hon. Friend said, and it is correct to assume, that, were an advertising ban to go through, we would, in my view, be in the not entirely satisfactory position of needing to make available the information that mothers need, solely through the voluntary sector. That is not necessarily a position in which we would wish to find ourselves.
My hon. Friend made another argument in relation to the advertising restrictions. The restrictions currently adopted voluntarily by the industry apply only to advertising aimed at the purchasers of the products. That is mainly mothers and pregnant women. The restrictions do not apply to the manufacturers' advertising to wholesalers and retailers.
However, the industry believes, and I have to say that it is correct, that the draft regulations would prohibit manufacturers from advertising to the trade, and that the ban would include leaflets and circulars, conference displays and other forms of communication. I am well

aware of the strength of feeling about that point by people in the industry, and at this stage, as my hon. Friend correctly speculated, I have to say that I and my ministerial colleagues will consider carefully all those details before deciding the final form of the regulations.
It has been suggested—my hon. Friend mentioned it—that it is inconsistent to consider legislating against the advertising of infant formula while refusing to take similar action in the case of tobacco. The fundamental issues involved are not the same. Cigarette smoking is a matter of personal and adult choice, and the Government believe that voluntary agreements with the tobacco industry provide the best way of controlling its advertising.
It does not follow that the same solution is appropriate for infant formula advertising, where we are seeking to protect the best interests of people who are unable to exercise their own personal choice—the new-born. It is necessary to consider each case on its merits, and to explore all the options before reaching a decision. Consultation, as my hon. Friend is aware, is a fundamental part of that process.
I am aware that the European Community directive requires member states to implement its provisions by 1 June 1994. It is quite possible that our regulations will not be finalised, and made and laid before Parliament, by then. That will obviously have consequences for the coming into force date that the Government will need to consider.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the arguments that he raised in the debate. I can assure him that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will bear all his arguments in mind when we consider the way in which the draft UK regulations should best be finalised, which we hope to do soon. I will ensure that my hon. Friend is informed when that occurs. I once again congratulate him on an extremely well-informed and interesting speech.

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at five minutes to Twelve midnight.